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.
I often wonder what Buddha would think of the world we live in. His world was rather small, and the lives we lead, just by existing, cause the death of animals every day. The nature of how most of us receive our food, do our jobs, get to our jobs, the "stuff" we have and what the costs are to the planet to have that stuff, our homes, etc. I think you can only do the best you know how, always keeping in mind "If you cannot help, at least try not to hurt." But our very existences these days cost the lives of beings everywhere. It's unavoidable.
Is a person who is almost entirely self-sustaining by fishing, hunting and gardening "better" or "worse" than someone who is vegetarian but lives in a huge electricity hogging house and buys 100% of their food at the grocery store? The Buddha likely couldn't have envisioned a time in humanity where we were becoming responsible for the downfall of the planet as we are now. And I think that having to think on a global scale makes it much more difficult to think through these problems and still be able to let go of the guilt and anxiety.
Just got the new National Geographic today and there was a short article about how paper wasps can recognize each others' faces. I've often wondered if us humans have given our own species too much credit for skills and not enough credit to other life forms. I think other beings are always in the moment and experience this thing we call life directly. Perhaps our advanced skills are also our hinderance.
Sooo this reminds me of a wonderful childrerns/young adult book. Ender's game. Gosh I love this book. It is about a child who is very different and shows great skills, he is also put either purposefully or simply by the nature of being different through incredible tests. I don't want to give it all away but not many people will read it I figure.
He shows amazing skills in being a leader and playing these games that are training to defend humans against a race that has come before to attack earth. The entire idea is that these young people are training. The other race is insect type, space traveling, and have been in war with humans before. So he is able to see how they function more as interconnected beings rather than individuals and defeats them in the game with his team of young people.
But it is actually not a game, and instead is the real war. The military leaders know that if it were 'real' the players may not act the same, and so there is a current war in space that earth does not know about. Then there are books after this that build the relationships between races. I just find it fascinating to think about advanced beings with more of an insect style race.
Ender's Game!!! That book blew me away. Granted, I was much younger then, but I've never forgotten that story. Often when using my iPad I think of how it seems similar to the "tablet" (was that the word?) used by the kids in Ender's classes.
I've often wondered if us humans have given our own species too much credit for skills and not enough credit to other life forms.
I think as a species we're very arrogant in our relationship to other forms of life, often just viewing them as a resource, something to be used or eaten.
Sure killing insects have karmic consequences. But, their karmic consequences may take more to have any obvious effect. Like, if one kills a hundred insects, then the karmic fruit would be one would get sick. Though their lives are precious, it would take more of them to have karmic effect vs. if one would kill a cat. But in any scenerio, one must think, saving one's own life is far more precious. If that animal is dangerous or cause disease, don't be afraid to take the necessary action. A person must use his intelligence above all else to preserve his life. The Buddha advise one to follow the precepts. They are not absolute, but guidelines. But most importantly, He advise one to use his intelligence to guage the situation.
One cannot escape the karmic effect so long as one exists on Earth, so long as one lives and breathe. But, in the grand scheme of things, one must understand that there are other things worth pursuing. It does not mean one negates bad karma. It just means that when one uses one's life for the pursuit of greater good, the good karma may outweigh the bad as to make it appear inconsequential. If one commits so much killing that the result would have seen one be dead due to this bad karma, if one has committed enough good karma, this heavy consequence may just appear as an accident with non-life threatening result. This is just a way of looking at it. It is like a cube of salt in a glass of water. That glass would taste really salty. But, the same cube of salt into a pond, one hardly notices it.
I like many of the responses, but I think too many are giving too much credit to and underestimating bugs at the same time. You all realize that some lines of code in a machine can allow it to perform basic tasks on command and there are robots that can recognize people and adapt to their surroundings. Insects can exhibit the same behavior yet some claim it's proof that they are more alive than we think. I'm not saying bugs don't matter, I'm just saying some are grouping basic mental functions with advanced mental functions. They're bugs, not plants; even though they are very limited mentally, they can still exhibit behavior that shows a brain exists. (even though they have small brains, they still exist) I assume even a bug's brain can store memories. It's almost like a computer's hard drive if you think about. Respect life, but I'm not sure that the habits people are claiming make insects more "lifelike" actually support the case.
I only kill insects to put them out of their misery if they are suffering greatly. Usually that's not the case, so I will spend however long it takes by carefully removing them from my room and placing them somewhere out of my room but safe, even if it takes hours to catch them. I think the intent of an action is what really determines if it was skillful/unskillful.
It's nice when people can use nonlethal means to deal with insects and other small, intrusive animals in our lives. If there's no need to kill, then don't. I am known to be strange around my family because I'll capture spiders and wasps and turn them loose outside instead of stomping on them.
But, there is a big problem with thinking it's wrong to kill anything at any time, even a bug. I always point out, in the real world millions of misquitos were slaughtered in the tropics in a campaign to save people from malaria. Because those millions of bugs were killed, many thousands of people had their lives saved then and now. So is it wrong to kill bugs, or not?
I also point out to vegetarians that without motorized farm machinary millions of people would have starved to death, yet billions of field mice are now routinely slaughtered by the combine harvester every year from getting caught up in its blades. When you buy a loaf of bread or sack of flower, you're supporting wholesale killing of these "sentient beings". So do we shut down the farms?
Like it or not, in the real world we have to assign relative value to lives. Yes, your life is worth more than a bug's life. It's worth more than the life of a mouse. If your house was burning, would you expect the fireman to rescue the goldfish or cat before they rescue your baby?
Every moral question you have depends on the situation because that is what life is: a series of situations we must handle best we can.
The Noble is not one who injures living beings. The Noble is one who never injures living beings. Dhammapada 270
The one who has left all violence, who never harm any being, whether moving are stationary, who neither kill, nor causes to kill, such one, harmless, is a Holy One. Dhammapada 405
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe! Sutta Nipāta 2.396
It's nice when people can use nonlethal means to deal with insects and other small, intrusive animals in our lives. If there's no need to kill, then don't. I am known to be strange around my family because I'll capture spiders and wasps and turn them loose outside instead of stomping on them.
But, there is a big problem with thinking it's wrong to kill anything at any time, even a bug. I always point out, in the real world millions of misquitos were slaughtered in the tropics in a campaign to save people from malaria. Because those millions of bugs were killed, many thousands of people had their lives saved then and now. So is it wrong to kill bugs, or not?
I also point out to vegetarians that without motorized farm machinary millions of people would have starved to death, yet billions of field mice are now routinely slaughtered by the combine harvester every year from getting caught up in its blades. When you buy a loaf of bread or sack of flower, you're supporting wholesale killing of these "sentient beings". So do we shut down the farms?
Like it or not, in the real world we have to assign relative value to lives. Yes, your life is worth more than a bug's life. It's worth more than the life of a mouse. If your house was burning, would you expect the fireman to rescue the goldfish or cat before they rescue your baby?
Every moral question you have depends on the situation because that is what life is: a series of situations we must handle best we can.
Definitely one of my favorite answers. When it comes to saving thousands of lives by ending the lives of lifeforms which can't suffer I belief while not justifiable, it certainly outweighs the bad with the good. I became a vegetarian buddhist, and I put the rats dying due to farm equipment under the same category as driving my car. When I drive, I don't intend to kill, however other creatures aren't smart and they kill themselves using my circumstances. The farm equipment isn't meant to kill, it's meant to save. Because other creatures are at the wrong place at the wrong time, they suffer, but you can't teach these things to animals, so no matter what you try, the inability to think rationally is still going to lead to animal deaths regardless. I say as long as you don't support killing and try to cause as little as possible you're going the right way. Just like a drunk guy getting hit by a car because he didn't have the mental capacity to stay out of the road, many animals don't have the capacity either.
If a drunk guy jumped in front of your car and died, would you blame him for not being in a rational mindset, or you for not being able to do the impossible and stop it from happening in a split second?
ANYTHING can kill an animal which does not "know". Including having a bucket of water out. Blaming yourself for another's lack of intelligence is the wrong way to go.
I also point out to vegetarians that without motorized farm machinary millions of people would have starved to death, yet billions of field mice are now routinely slaughtered by the combine harvester every year from getting caught up in its blades. When you buy a loaf of bread or sack of flower, you're supporting wholesale killing of these "sentient beings". So do we shut down the farms?
As somebody commented earlier, our practice as Buddhists is to minimise the harm we do. So, yes, even if we just eat grain and veggies, lots of creatures will die in the farming process. But if we feed the grain to animals and then eat the animals, doesn't it mean that even more creatures will suffer and die? Just a thought.
Comments
Is a person who is almost entirely self-sustaining by fishing, hunting and gardening "better" or "worse" than someone who is vegetarian but lives in a huge electricity hogging house and buys 100% of their food at the grocery store? The Buddha likely couldn't have envisioned a time in humanity where we were becoming responsible for the downfall of the planet as we are now. And I think that having to think on a global scale makes it much more difficult to think through these problems and still be able to let go of the guilt and anxiety.
He shows amazing skills in being a leader and playing these games that are training to defend humans against a race that has come before to attack earth. The entire idea is that these young people are training. The other race is insect type, space traveling, and have been in war with humans before. So he is able to see how they function more as interconnected beings rather than individuals and defeats them in the game with his team of young people.
But it is actually not a game, and instead is the real war. The military leaders know that if it were 'real' the players may not act the same, and so there is a current war in space that earth does not know about. Then there are books after this that build the relationships between races. I just find it fascinating to think about advanced beings with more of an insect style race.
One cannot escape the karmic effect so long as one exists on Earth, so long as one lives and breathe. But, in the grand scheme of things, one must understand that there are other things worth pursuing. It does not mean one negates bad karma. It just means that when one uses one's life for the pursuit of greater good, the good karma may outweigh the bad as to make it appear inconsequential. If one commits so much killing that the result would have seen one be dead due to this bad karma, if one has committed enough good karma, this heavy consequence may just appear as an accident with non-life threatening result. This is just a way of looking at it. It is like a cube of salt in a glass of water. That glass would taste really salty. But, the same cube of salt into a pond, one hardly notices it.
But, there is a big problem with thinking it's wrong to kill anything at any time, even a bug. I always point out, in the real world millions of misquitos were slaughtered in the tropics in a campaign to save people from malaria. Because those millions of bugs were killed, many thousands of people had their lives saved then and now. So is it wrong to kill bugs, or not?
I also point out to vegetarians that without motorized farm machinary millions of people would have starved to death, yet billions of field mice are now routinely slaughtered by the combine harvester every year from getting caught up in its blades. When you buy a loaf of bread or sack of flower, you're supporting wholesale killing of these "sentient beings". So do we shut down the farms?
Like it or not, in the real world we have to assign relative value to lives. Yes, your life is worth more than a bug's life. It's worth more than the life of a mouse. If your house was burning, would you expect the fireman to rescue the goldfish or cat before they rescue your baby?
Every moral question you have depends on the situation because that is what life is: a series of situations we must handle best we can.
The Noble is one who never injures living beings.
Dhammapada 270
The one who has left all violence,
who never harm any being,
whether moving are stationary,
who neither kill, nor causes to kill,
such one, harmless, is a Holy One.
Dhammapada 405
One should not kill any living being,
nor cause it to be killed,
nor should one incite any other to kill.
Do never injure any being, whether strong
or weak, in this entire universe!
Sutta Nipāta 2.396
I became a vegetarian buddhist, and I put the rats dying due to farm equipment under the same category as driving my car. When I drive, I don't intend to kill, however other creatures aren't smart and they kill themselves using my circumstances. The farm equipment isn't meant to kill, it's meant to save. Because other creatures are at the wrong place at the wrong time, they suffer, but you can't teach these things to animals, so no matter what you try, the inability to think rationally is still going to lead to animal deaths regardless. I say as long as you don't support killing and try to cause as little as possible you're going the right way. Just like a drunk guy getting hit by a car because he didn't have the mental capacity to stay out of the road, many animals don't have the capacity either.
If a drunk guy jumped in front of your car and died, would you blame him for not being in a rational mindset, or you for not being able to do the impossible and stop it from happening in a split second?
ANYTHING can kill an animal which does not "know". Including having a bucket of water out. Blaming yourself for another's lack of intelligence is the wrong way to go.