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.
Killed a fly today - though for a reason- feeling bad
For the purposes of Buddhist practice, calling a being "sentient" presumably means that it is holding a self-concept which it is struggling to preserve. Are the 10<sup>5</sup> neurons in a fly brain capable of representing a self-concept? No one really knows, yet, but it seems unlikely to me.
Perhaps this is true in some cases, but not all, and especially not the first precept. As DD has already pointed out, a sentient or living being in this context is a "being that breathes." So the first precept is fairly broad and certainly doesn't seem to be limited to only beings holding onto self-concepts.
Perhaps this is true in some cases, but not all, and especially not the first precept. As DD has already pointed out, a sentient or living being in this context is a "being that breathes." So the first precept is fairly broad and certainly doesn't seem to be limited to only beings holding onto self-concepts.
Even breathing can be vague. Is it anything that has lungs? Is it anything that processes oxygen? What about plants that breathe CO2? Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but if you vow to uphold an absolute precept, you should understand exactly what it is you are vowing.
For the purposes of Buddhist practice, calling a being "sentient" presumably means that it is holding a self-concept which it is struggling to preserve. Are the 10<SUP>5</SUP> neurons in a fly brain capable of representing a self-concept? No one really knows, yet, but it seems unlikely to me.
...
That's just an argument from ignorance. We're all taking the best crack at the issue we can, based on what we know. There's no ruling out that some mystical component of a fly makes killing it unethical, but it seems pretty unlikely to me.
So does the same apply to people in comas? What about a person in their sleep? What about about a buddha?
Even breathing can be vague. Is it anything that has lungs? Is it anything that processes oxygen? What about plants that breathe CO2? Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but if you vow to uphold an absolute precept, you should understand exactly what it is you are vowing.
Why not. Destroying anything out of annoyance would seem to be an issue from a Buddhist perspective in my opinion. Now perhaps the plant isn't capable of pain, but harming something that benefits us and all other beings, something necessary to the planet's survival, and making its job more difficult, out of annoyance, seems pretty ignorant to me.
If absolutely nothing else, the annoyance, dislike, and/or laziness felt that lead to swatting the fly is certainly an issue in terms of one's own Buddhist practice.
Genuinely just trying to protect yourself? Different story. Although I must say, a fly is rather harmless and given you're the one killing it, it would seem the fear doesn't have must justification.
Even breathing can be vague. Is it anything that has lungs? Is it anything that processes oxygen? What about plants that breathe CO2? Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but if you vow to uphold an absolute precept, you should understand exactly what it is you are vowing.
Who said anything about upholding absolute precepts? I'm just pointing out what the Pali word pana actually means in relation to the first precept.
In India, the word for breath and life — Skt. prana, Pali panna — is the same. It was first used the Upanishads, and was used in reference to the life-force of a living being, to that which sustains both the body and mind.
In Buddhism, it's generally used in reference to all living things possessing consciousness, gross or subtle.
Personally, when I undertake the first precept as a spiritual practice, I try to refrain from killing living beings, including insects, because I see my desires for happiness and freedom from pain in all living creatures. I do it out of compassion and loving-kindness, not because of any vow.
So does the same apply to people in comas? What about a person in their sleep? What about about a buddha?
You can push it in the other direction, too. The computer I'm typing this into has approximately the same level of complexity, and is presumably capable of simulating nonplayer characters a greater repertoire of survival-oriented behaviors than a fly. How should I relate to that character, and why should it be different to how I relate to a fly?
You can push it in the other direction, too. The computer I'm typing this into has approximately the same level of complexity, and is presumably capable of simulating nonplayer characters a greater repertoire of survival-oriented behaviors than a fly. How should I relate to that character, and why should it be different to how I relate to a fly?
My boyfriend snores in his sleep. No conscious activity, no self-fabricating or clinging at that time. Haven't felt justified in killing him... yet. In terms of the First Precept it seems this definition of sentience doesn't fit.
A fly may be nothing more than instinctive, automatic reactions that has no significant role in the universe, but if so, that brings us back to: "If absolutely nothing else, the annoyance, dislike, and/or laziness felt that lead to swatting the fly is certainly an issue in terms of one's own Buddhist practice."
I'm personally inclined to let the thing live either way as it's not a threat to me, and just in case on some level it does value its life or have the capacity to suffer.
Beings can be at many different levels of understanding/perception, however, they are only capable of understanding the level that they are at in the here and now.They may not always be this way. Maybe the dog will evolve, get smarter and smarter, and eventually learn calculus. It may take unfathomable amounts of lives to do so, but it might. (Yay for math dogs!!):p
Here's a thought from a newbie. As the Buddha taught, ALL sentient beings have the "right" to attain enlightenment (I use the word "right" for want of a better word). The Buddha was said to have recalled his past lives and recalled one in the Hell Realm where he was a bull (I think) and a demon there killed him because he felt compassion for his fellow bull and offered to take his load when he felt tired or ill. So the demon struck him on the head with his trident and instantly killed him. The Buddha was then reborn into a different realm.
Perhaps in killing the fly, you have helped him on his way up "the dharma ladder" and he was reborn in a higher realm?
That's just an argument from ignorance. We're all taking the best crack at the issue we can, based on what we know. There's no ruling out that some mystical component of a fly makes killing it unethical, but it seems pretty unlikely to me.
Imagine if you where the fly and someone came to kill you ? :skeptical
How buddhists can lack basic compassion for even the smallest insect is beyond me.
Everything has a right to a life. I can't believe anyone is trying to justify killing our seventh cousin; the fly. I wouldn't kill it for three reasons. One, I wouldn't like it done to me, it might have a family, and it could be a reincarnation of a friend, family, or pet.
Love & Peace
Joe
Everything has a right to a life. I can't believe anyone is trying to justify killing our seventh cousin; the fly. I wouldn't kill it for three reasons. One, I wouldn't like it done to me, it might have a family, and it could be a reincarnation of a friend, family, or pet.
Love & Peace
Joe
I agree with you LNP its nice to see you have some compassion where some others here could do to learn from your example
Imagine if you where the fly and someone came to kill you ? :skeptical
How buddhists can lack basic compassion for even the smallest insect is beyond me.
It's not a failure of compassion. There is no passion to identify with, there. "Imagine if you were the fly..." is just begging the question, when I'm saying the fly is too simple to suffer in the sense we usually mean.
I boubt Federica and Thefound, to name but a couple, would most likely get quite upset if a spider or a fly killed them. And when I annoy someone or step on to their lawn I don't expect to be murdered. Call yourselves Buddhists, ha!
Suman, don't feel bad about killing the fly, at least you have a consience...
Love & Peace
Joe
LOL I didn't say it either. I commeneted on the decisions necessary to 'arrive at' your flesh, not the simple urge to bite. I imagined the decisions necessary to negotiate around a building, find the entrances, find a source of food and finally feed. Thus surely makes it a higher order than a stimulus-response plant.
I'm not sure if we can ever be sure that killing a human will always cause more impact than killling an insect. After all, if we killed the mosquito that was going to give Tony Blair malaria and prevent him joining Bush as a warmonger..... However, in general I accept the point.
It's not a failure of compassion. There is no passion to identify with, there. "Imagine if you were the fly..." is just begging the question, when I'm saying the fly is too simple to suffer in the sense we usually mean.
They maywell be but if you squish it does it not bleed ? :rolleyes:
Exchange self with others...
A life is what you're living. It's sacred because it's a life. Your life is sacred. Their life is sacred. For your life to be worth being sacred you must sacre other lives too. Simples.
A life is what you're living. It's sacred because it's a life. Your life is sacred. Their life is sacred. For your life to be worth being sacred you must sacre other lives too. Simples.
That's not an argument, LNP. That's an emotional appeal.
The action has to be considered in the context of the mental state from which it arises, but yes, there are many quotidian circumstances in which it is OK.
The action has to be considered in the context of the mental state from which it arises, but yes, there are many quotidian circumstances in which it is OK.
I agree an action is determined by its mental state/intention.
However how can one justify it being okay to take the lives of another there may be very very few occassions where it is needs be but other then life threatening situations we should avoid life taking at all costs, especially with a mind of anger.
It's not about the justification. That's just another game people play. People enter hellish states of mind all the time, feeling that they are fully within their rights to do so, and perhaps they are. (I've done it, and I've seen you do it.) It's about the state of mind itself. If the desire to kill an insect arises from hatred or fear, that is a problem, but the problem is the state of mind, not the action per se. If it does not arise from such a state of mind, it is possibly not a problem.
It's not about the justification. That's just another game people play. People enter hellish states of mind all the time, feeling that they are fully within their rights to do so, and perhaps they are. (I've done it, and I've seen you do it.) It's about the state of mind itself. If the desire to kill an insect arises from hatred or fear, that is a problem, but the problem is the state of mind, not the action per se. If it does not arise from such a state of mind, it is possibly not a problem.
So if i punch a stranger in his face with a happy state of mind he is less likely to get pissed off with me ?
Intention plays a big role in determining the outcome but it doesnt mean that an action is completely devoid of virtue or negativity unless there is some mental intention. :cool:
The question is whether you can punch a stranger in the face in a peaceful state of mind. That seems to be impossible, at least in typical circumstances.
The question is whether you can punch a stranger in the face in a peaceful state of mind. That seems to be impossible, at least in typical circumstances.
yes thats correct, but is the action of punching someone in the face virtuous or negative ?
Fivebells, when it comes to killing there's no argument.
End of.
Love & Peace
Joe
Actually, all there is is argument. Euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, killing for sustenance... there's death all around us and (forgive me KoB) the issue isn't black-and-white as you present it, Joe. So:
So if i punch a stranger in his face with a happy state of mind he is less likely to get pissed off with me ?
It's not about punching a stranger in the face with a happy state of mind, but a state of mind free clinging, free from greed, hatred, and delusion. If a person were in the act of detonating a bomb that would kill thousands of people, would a buddha punch that person in the face to stop them? Inaction is intentional action as well.
Actually, all there is is argument. Euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, killing for sustenance... there's death all around us and (forgive me KoB) the issue isn't black-and-white as you present it, Joe. So:
It's not about punching a stranger in the face with a happy state of mind, but a state of mind free clinging, free from greed, hatred, and delusion. If a person were in the act of detonating a bomb that would kill thousands of people, would a buddha punch that person in the face to stop them? Inaction is intentional action as well.
Euthanasia: OK if the creature is in pain
Doctor-Assisted Suicide: It's a person's own choice
Abortion: Wrong. Even in an orthanage they're still getting a chance at life.
I'm a veggitarian because we can survive without killing animals for food, there for they're dieing for no reason than to feed people who don't need to eat it. Killing is only acceptable if it's in self-defense, and even then people should try not to. I gave my argument-that's-not-an-argument earlier.
Love & Peace
Joe
This is an interesting question. I guess it depends on if you value life. Or what you value in general? As someone who is at the "crossroads" of my life, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, trying to define my values, and find what's really important to me and what I want out of life.
I'm curious, what do you value fivebells? Actually, what do all of you value?
Dhammachick:
Thats an interesting story, one I've never heard before. I guess that's possible, I hadn't really thought about it like that.
The action has to be considered in the context of the mental state from which it arises, but yes, there are many quotidian circumstances in which it is OK.
Kind of depends whose everyday commonplace activity you're talking about. If I was the insect I might consider being squished anything but that.
I think a quotidian perspective may all too easily lead to a casual attitude to killing other beings. I always give such things a lot of thought and never see it as quotidian. The exception is, for example, accidentally treading on a snail - too late for thought so I just wish it a fortunate rebirth - in case the snail is Mahayana (LOL ).
I think the values we hold are at their most relevant when it comes to killing, so I think it is on topic.
We all have aspirational values - values we wish to develop, such as bodhichitta, selflessness, loving kindness.
We also have the reality of our present values, which can be our motivation to change - most fit within anger, attachment and ignorance.
In my own case I recognise a VERY long list of values I need to ditch to find the 'peace' fivebells rightly identifies. Am I alone in 'clinging' to my wife, my kids? Right now, I value them to the extent that I would readily die for them and might even kill to protect them. I value my home and income, but only really as aspects of looking after my family. I value material possessions least. I value all living beings and do my best not to cause harm.
I also value the Dharma and see it as something which offers us a way to rise above our mundane 'values'.
I guess each of us could spend hours thinking through what we value, and it would be time well spent, so thank you for the question.
yes thats correct, but is the action of punching someone in the face virtuous or negative ?
According to the Buddha's advice to his son, Rahula, any bodily action that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both is an unskillful bodily action (MN 61). The principle of harmlessness (ahimsa) — which is an important aspect of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism — extends beyond our own immediate welfare, it also includes the welfare of others.
That doesn't mean that there won't be circumstances when we may need to cause harm to defend ourselves, our families or innocent victims from being harmed, but as a general principle it means we that should avoid causing harm when at all possible.
If you go far enough in Buddhist practice, sooner or later you have to step out of your family's structure.
In terms of developing compassion and love I have found that easy.
In terms of abandoning the attachments to those close to me - it's a work in progress.
It's not difficult to step out of your family's structure and work towards Bodhichitta (or Universal Compassion). It's difficult not to leave one foot behind.
In Tibet, young boys are taught to think of their mothers and work from that emotion to develop love and compassion. Graft that onto the UK and teach a class of adults and many will say 'I don't like my mother!'. We all need some base. I think it may be hardest when one has no base - no family, no experience of love from which to expand.;)
According to the Buddha's advice to his son, Rahula, any bodily action that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both is an unskillful bodily action (MN 61). The principle of harmlessness (ahimsa) — which is an important aspect of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism — extends beyond our own immediate welfare, it also includes the welfare of others.
That doesn't mean that there won't be circumstances when we may need to cause harm to defend ourselves, our families or innocent victims from being harmed, but as a general principle it means we that should avoid causing harm when at all possible.
I wasnt debating the circumstance jason i was directing the questionas to wheather certain actions are negative/positive regardless of mental imput.
Sorry all! I've only been at this a year or two, so are we supposed to not feel attatched to our family, but still love them? And if so, how is this acheived? Thanks!
Love & Peace
Joe:)
Comments
Perhaps this is true in some cases, but not all, and especially not the first precept. As DD has already pointed out, a sentient or living being in this context is a "being that breathes." So the first precept is fairly broad and certainly doesn't seem to be limited to only beings holding onto self-concepts.
Even breathing can be vague. Is it anything that has lungs? Is it anything that processes oxygen? What about plants that breathe CO2? Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but if you vow to uphold an absolute precept, you should understand exactly what it is you are vowing.
So does the same apply to people in comas? What about a person in their sleep? What about about a buddha?
Why not. Destroying anything out of annoyance would seem to be an issue from a Buddhist perspective in my opinion. Now perhaps the plant isn't capable of pain, but harming something that benefits us and all other beings, something necessary to the planet's survival, and making its job more difficult, out of annoyance, seems pretty ignorant to me.
If absolutely nothing else, the annoyance, dislike, and/or laziness felt that lead to swatting the fly is certainly an issue in terms of one's own Buddhist practice.
Genuinely just trying to protect yourself? Different story. Although I must say, a fly is rather harmless and given you're the one killing it, it would seem the fear doesn't have must justification.
Who said anything about upholding absolute precepts? I'm just pointing out what the Pali word pana actually means in relation to the first precept.
In India, the word for breath and life — Skt. prana, Pali panna — is the same. It was first used the Upanishads, and was used in reference to the life-force of a living being, to that which sustains both the body and mind.
In Buddhism, it's generally used in reference to all living things possessing consciousness, gross or subtle.
Personally, when I undertake the first precept as a spiritual practice, I try to refrain from killing living beings, including insects, because I see my desires for happiness and freedom from pain in all living creatures. I do it out of compassion and loving-kindness, not because of any vow.
You can push it in the other direction, too. The computer I'm typing this into has approximately the same level of complexity, and is presumably capable of simulating nonplayer characters a greater repertoire of survival-oriented behaviors than a fly. How should I relate to that character, and why should it be different to how I relate to a fly?
My boyfriend snores in his sleep. No conscious activity, no self-fabricating or clinging at that time. Haven't felt justified in killing him... yet.
A fly may be nothing more than instinctive, automatic reactions that has no significant role in the universe, but if so, that brings us back to: "If absolutely nothing else, the annoyance, dislike, and/or laziness felt that lead to swatting the fly is certainly an issue in terms of one's own Buddhist practice."
I'm personally inclined to let the thing live either way as it's not a threat to me, and just in case on some level it does value its life or have the capacity to suffer.
Here's a thought from a newbie. As the Buddha taught, ALL sentient beings have the "right" to attain enlightenment (I use the word "right" for want of a better word). The Buddha was said to have recalled his past lives and recalled one in the Hell Realm where he was a bull (I think) and a demon there killed him because he felt compassion for his fellow bull and offered to take his load when he felt tired or ill. So the demon struck him on the head with his trident and instantly killed him. The Buddha was then reborn into a different realm.
Perhaps in killing the fly, you have helped him on his way up "the dharma ladder" and he was reborn in a higher realm?
Just a thought, maybe not a useful one either....
- Raven
Imagine if you where the fly and someone came to kill you ? :skeptical
How buddhists can lack basic compassion for even the smallest insect is beyond me.
Love & Peace
Joe
I agree with you LNP its nice to see you have some compassion where some others here could do to learn from your example
Suman, don't feel bad about killing the fly, at least you have a consience...
Love & Peace
Joe
LOL
I'm not sure if we can ever be sure that killing a human will always cause more impact than killling an insect. After all, if we killed the mosquito that was going to give Tony Blair malaria and prevent him joining Bush as a warmonger..... However, in general I accept the point.
They maywell be but if you squish it does it not bleed ? :rolleyes:
Exchange self with others...
Love & Peace
Joe
And some people hear'll be a fly if they aren't carefull...
I dont see why there is an argument about whys its benifical not to kill things...
are you trying to point out that its okay for people to kill insects ? You dont seem to be hinting much of the opposite.
I agree an action is determined by its mental state/intention.
However how can one justify it being okay to take the lives of another there may be very very few occassions where it is needs be but other then life threatening situations we should avoid life taking at all costs, especially with a mind of anger.
So if i punch a stranger in his face with a happy state of mind he is less likely to get pissed off with me ?
Intention plays a big role in determining the outcome but it doesnt mean that an action is completely devoid of virtue or negativity unless there is some mental intention. :cool:
yes thats correct, but is the action of punching someone in the face virtuous or negative ?
End of.
Love & Peace
Joe
Actually, all there is is argument. Euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, killing for sustenance... there's death all around us and (forgive me KoB) the issue isn't black-and-white as you present it, Joe. So:
It's not about punching a stranger in the face with a happy state of mind, but a state of mind free clinging, free from greed, hatred, and delusion. If a person were in the act of detonating a bomb that would kill thousands of people, would a buddha punch that person in the face to stop them? Inaction is intentional action as well.
Well punching someone in the face cause pain and suffering, negativity is that which causes pain and suffering...hint hint.
Euthanasia: OK if the creature is in pain
Doctor-Assisted Suicide: It's a person's own choice
Abortion: Wrong. Even in an orthanage they're still getting a chance at life.
I'm a veggitarian because we can survive without killing animals for food, there for they're dieing for no reason than to feed people who don't need to eat it. Killing is only acceptable if it's in self-defense, and even then people should try not to. I gave my argument-that's-not-an-argument earlier.
Love & Peace
Joe
This is an interesting question. I guess it depends on if you value life. Or what you value in general? As someone who is at the "crossroads" of my life, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, trying to define my values, and find what's really important to me and what I want out of life.
I'm curious, what do you value fivebells? Actually, what do all of you value?
Dhammachick:
Thats an interesting story, one I've never heard before. I guess that's possible, I hadn't really thought about it like that.
I'm glad you asked. In the context of Buddhist practice, the central values are peace and awareness.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread
Kind of depends whose everyday commonplace activity you're talking about. If I was the insect I might consider being squished anything but that.
I think a quotidian perspective may all too easily lead to a casual attitude to killing other beings. I always give such things a lot of thought and never see it as quotidian. The exception is, for example, accidentally treading on a snail - too late for thought so I just wish it a fortunate rebirth - in case the snail is Mahayana (LOL
I think the values we hold are at their most relevant when it comes to killing, so I think it is on topic.
We all have aspirational values - values we wish to develop, such as bodhichitta, selflessness, loving kindness.
We also have the reality of our present values, which can be our motivation to change - most fit within anger, attachment and ignorance.
In my own case I recognise a VERY long list of values I need to ditch to find the 'peace' fivebells rightly identifies. Am I alone in 'clinging' to my wife, my kids? Right now, I value them to the extent that I would readily die for them and might even kill to protect them. I value my home and income, but only really as aspects of looking after my family. I value material possessions least. I value all living beings and do my best not to cause harm.
I also value the Dharma and see it as something which offers us a way to rise above our mundane 'values'.
I guess each of us could spend hours thinking through what we value, and it would be time well spent, so thank you for the question.
Yes but its still good practise to value them
According to the Buddha's advice to his son, Rahula, any bodily action that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both is an unskillful bodily action (MN 61). The principle of harmlessness (ahimsa) — which is an important aspect of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism — extends beyond our own immediate welfare, it also includes the welfare of others.
That doesn't mean that there won't be circumstances when we may need to cause harm to defend ourselves, our families or innocent victims from being harmed, but as a general principle it means we that should avoid causing harm when at all possible.
In terms of developing compassion and love I have found that easy.
In terms of abandoning the attachments to those close to me - it's a work in progress.
It's not difficult to step out of your family's structure and work towards Bodhichitta (or Universal Compassion). It's difficult not to leave one foot behind.
In Tibet, young boys are taught to think of their mothers and work from that emotion to develop love and compassion. Graft that onto the UK and teach a class of adults and many will say 'I don't like my mother!'. We all need some base. I think it may be hardest when one has no base - no family, no experience of love from which to expand.;)
I wasnt debating the circumstance jason i was directing the questionas to wheather certain actions are negative/positive regardless of mental imput.
I understand. I was just giving my own answer, which is basically: Yes, but it depends on the circumstances.
Love & Peace
Joe:)