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.
need help
With the economy the way it is, after being laid off i took a job working for a pest control company, i have to put chemicals in the ground to control them. Most of the time i dont have to kill them but on occassion i do. How can i be a buddhist and do this? I have a wife and child and thereare no jobs available-I mediatate on my dilemma but still dont know what to do.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Also, I would suggest looking for another job when you are able to. I am sure that in time you will be able to find other work.
If I were you I would stop.
If you have taken vows, then you can't be selective about them.
Neither can you be selective about the 8FP - 'Right Livelihood' is part.
You seem to have double posted this thread forty1bullets, but a comment was made also, that u could jump on the opportunity for another job, as soon as it presents itself. It's just a matter of getting through a (hopefully brief) rough patch.
Best of luck !
Moderator note:
Threads merged.
My view may be seen as extreme, but I see little purpose in taking even the basic Pratimoksha Vows if they are to be treated as optional or aspirational, especially if we are already in control of our life-choices and perfectly able to keep to them, albeit that we all stumble at times.
As far as Right Livelihood goes, here's a reference:
''The Buddha mentions five specific kinds of livelihood which bring harm to others and are therefore to be avoided: dealing in weapons, in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), in meat production and butchery, in poisons, and in intoxicants (AN 5:177).''
(source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch4 )
The teaching may seem a little harsh, but the social context within which Buddha taught this was one which surely had a great deal of poverty and starvation, making such work choices very difficult. The OP is probably talking of a choice between working and welfare, not starvation and homelessness.
I once lost a well paid job by refusing to take on a meat processsing company as a client, so I don't dismiss for a moment the tough decisions such choices entail, especially with a family to support.
Good luck with it.
Your first duty is to your family and you can't put them in jeopardy to save the lives of some insects. Consider doing the loving kindness meditation frequently so that you don't become calloused and keep looking for another job in your free time. Let us know how it goes!
probably not starvation, but homelessness is a distinct possibility in the US. There is a loose patchwork of subsidies and charities, but deliberately quitting a paying job would probably disqualify him for most of them.
It's obviously not ideal and I'm sure he'll continue to look for something more appropriate. But he has his family to consider as well. If someone chooses that life, then caring for their family is their first duty and they should do it as mindfully as possible, and this is what the OP is trying to do. Things are not black and white, Yeshe.
And who said anyone took any vows, anyway? Your path is not everyone else's.
Exactly. And quite honestly, even if it didn't, it seems pretty low considering there're so many people who can't find ANY work, or who literally CAN'T work, and who struggle to get help like that.
Palzang
I did not say they were. Compassion for the OP is not best expressed by writing what we think he may want to hear. He asked about the dilemma of his work in the context of his Buddhism, not for advice on whether to put his family first etc..
Nobody. Certainly not me. I mentioned the basic lay Pratimoksha vows in case it was relevant, that is all.
I also quoted the teachings of the Buddha on the subject of Right Livelihood. If the Buddha taught that killing and poisoning is justifiable for family income, please point me to the teaching. Don't shoot the messenger, here.
I have been faced with such a choice. It is only when our values and beliefs are tested that we discover the depth of our commitment to them.
Sorry if that is uncomfortable, but Buddhism often is.
I was posting from a Buddhist perspective, not merely what I thought the OP wanted to hear. I don't think you should assume that others were just trying to comfort the OP with kind words. You are welcome to your views, but perhaps it is best to not insult the intentions of others.
It's unfortunate when one is required to engage in wrong livelihood, and it should be avoided whenever possible. However, as others have mentioned, for a lay person, the precepts are training rules, not absolute commandments. A lay person has a responsibly to support their family, this is the karma that goes with having a family and living a worldly life. It would incur negative karma if one was to allow one's family to starve to death.
In this case, there is no clear-cut right action. This is samsara. For us lay people living worldly lives, we should do the best we can to follow the precepts, but some common sense and pragmatism are needed as well. This, I believe, is why there is some flexibility in the rules.
Hopefully the OP can find better employment soon.
I didn't assume that at all. I just said it is better to address the Buddhist issues. This was in response to a post attacking me rather than addresssing the Buddhadharma I quoted. The OP said he is a Buddhist which, for me, means accepting at least the 4NT & 8FP, not just the bits which are convenient at different times in our lives.
And let's not belittle the poisoning by references to a few insects. Pest controllers also deal with rats etc. In India when we had rats, they were humanely caught in a cage and then released elsewhere. It's labour intensive, I guess, but nothing dies. Poisoning seems to be the option for cost and convenience rather than humane considerations of causing least harm in life.
You claim to have posted from a Buddhist perspective so please back that up with relevant Buddhadharma which refutes that which I posted, instead of attacking me, turning the poor guy's thread into a flame. Please explain how advice to place his family's lifestyle above killing and poisoning is Buddhist in origin.
You are assuming and accusing, and actually insulting, without any basis.
What is it here? Twice people have attacked words I never said and addressed assumptions they think I might have made - and ignored what I actually said. Stop being sanctimonious and inventing windmills to tilt at.
The OP needs clear advice derived from Buddhadharma.
the pratimoksha vows are directly relevant to the discussion.
since this is a Buddhist discussion forum they should certainly be allowed as part of the conversation.
I dont think Yeshe in any way asserted that his/her path was everyone elses or made any assertion that could make you think that.
He/she simply brought a relevant Buddhist principle into the conversation.
We have all exercised consideration of the path, and feel we are as correct in our responses as you feel you are in yours.
Given that no mention of vows was made or alluded to, it wasn't relevant. The Buddha's primary instruction is on Suffering, and the cessation of suffering. He gave us guidance in how to lead a skilful life, but nothing is carved in stone. Therefore, in asking us to consider intention and the other 7 spokes of the wheel, we all of us look at his teachings and take them in context of what we are living. We've all been faced with such choices at one point or another, in one way or another....And Buddhism is not in the slightest bit uncomfortable.
Buddhism is just fine, as it is.
It is we who create the discomfort......
I apologize if you took my words as an insult or an attack. That was not my intention.
The Vinaya prohibits wrong livelihood for monks, and is pretty much unquestionable. I am not arguing that.
Lay people who have taken the 5 precepts are expected to keep them, this is also true. However, intention is more important than strict adherence to the letter of the precepts. We are Buddhists not Jains. It is clear that the OP's intention is to provide for his family, and at this time wrong livelihood is the only way he is able to. This is most unfortunate, but in light of that all I can do is offer advice to seek better employment.
Isnt this a Buddhist forum? The vows are certainly relevant.
Firstly, I did not say that I was giving Buddhist advice and others were not. You have invented that, and also invented the conclusion from that invention that I was being unskillful. One member asserted that he was giving Buddhist advice, and as is normal practice, I asked for a source from the Buddha.
If, as you say 'we have all given him responses within our own understanding and interpretation of the Buddha's teachings' then it would be useful and polite to back that advice up with the source of Buddha's teachings upon which you are basing that advice.
The OP mentioned that he was Buddhist. I raised the issue of vows in case it was relevant, as I may also raise the Bodhisattva vows had he said he was a Mahayana Buddhist. He has not yet said that it was not, but even if it was not relevant to him, what is wrong in alluding to something potentially relevant? It's for him to accept or ignore it, not for you to judge his responses in advance by second-guessing. That is unskillful.
You also mention Intention. This is pertinent. Accidental killing does not carry that intent, poisoning rats does.
If 'nothing is carved in stone' then you are asserting that someone who ignores the 4NT and 8FP may claim to be following a Buddhist path? Right Livelihood is one of the 8FP - for Buddhists it is 'carved in stone', as you say, or I would assert that we can give advice to the OP from anything we choose and call it 'Buddhist'.
Your last point is a wise correction. We are indeed responsible for our own perception of suffering. Thank you for clarifying my clumsy wording.;)
How arrogant. You assume that only your view is Buddhist, and everyone else was just telling him what he wanted to hear.
You kind of just did, again.
Did the Buddha teach that one should let their family go homeless, go without eating, etc. and live off tax-payers money even when there are people who need that help more? He said it isn't ideal. He said he's trying to find other work. Your advice was "If I were you I would stop" when it was clear he will when he can; not very helpful.
Wow.
You made your family live on the streets and go without food? Or mooched tax-payer money when you didn't really need to?
Indeed. And it sounds like you're the uncomfortable one.
"Belittle"? Sounds like you're the one putting more value on certain sentient beings' lives, if talk about killing bugs is less significant than talk of killing slightly larger creatures.
Edit-
There is much more to the Buddha's teachings of intention than just "the intention to kill or not to kill." The reason for killing, the situation one is in, is relevant.
I give victory and claim defeat.
It seems impossible to debate on this thread without others inventing both my words and my thoughts and accusing me of breaking my own vows in attacking the path of others.
This is compounded by accusations that I am being arrogant by quoting the Buddha whilst others may assert whatever they please as Buddhism as they berate me. I have not accused anyone of this, but neither has one of them actually made reference to any aspect of the Buddhadharma which may help the OP with his dilemma.
To brush aside the importance of killing by referring only to the OP's killing of insects is actually differentiating between beings, avoiding the more uncomfortable ones? I addressed the reality which may be more uncomfortable.
I had a similar situation and chose to lose my job rather than help the slaughterers of animals - this is directly in accordance with Right Livelihood. Yes, it was tough on my family to lose a home and live on very little. I don't regard mockery of that to be very edifying, thanks.
Please carry on. I apologise for any harm or upset.
Personally I could not kill harmless animals in a meat factory. Still, and I don't like saying it, rats and vermon, can cause the spreading of disease and similar, so whilst I don't like the idea any day, morally speaking a find that less repelling then certain things that take place in some meat-factories.
oOmundus makes a very valid point, family is very IMPORTANT, and if you have to suck it up for a short time to support your family, I think that's a tough yet admirable thing to do.
Excellent Palzang, well said ! Hey there Yeshe... don't do that. To be honest you made some good points and are obviously a devout Buddhist.
HOWEVER, the point I think you may be missing is the typo of Buddhist. Like Poto said, we strive to live according to the Buddhist precepts, but also to live "worldy lives". You do tend to reason from your standpoint, which can be considered the "ultimate" way to go, but it would not be fair to pitch it up against others, who are choosing to combine both.
Even Buddhist accept the consequences of the "worldly life" you can find many readings on it, I think it is contextual therefore, and people here try to offer the best "contextual buddhist way". I hope this helps to mediate this very interesting topic.
Btw, I don't they are carved in stone, aren't they training rules, if u don't stick to them, you'll only be confronted with more suffering? That leaves a choice then right?
The Buddha taught kamma is intention. My view is your intention is not "killing".
Human beings must "clean" pests in many situations. Such as when they have intestinal worms or head lice; when termites invade their homes; when insects seek to devour crops; etc.
Kammic law follows natural law. The results of actions are something felt in the mind rather than magically transported to another life. For example, cleaning pests does not cause psychological derrangement in the human mind like the killing of human beings.
I recall when I lived a monastery once and a dog made its home on the balcony of a layman's hut. Soon, the hut became infested with fleas. The layman approached the abbot of the monastery and asked what to do? The abbot replied to go to town and buy something to 'clean' the hut. My friend approached me and asked me: "What did the abbot mean?" I went to town with him and advised him to buy some insecticide.
My recommendation is you continue doing your job. The reality of human life is there are times human beings must maintain their living environment in a suitable state. Try to reflect on the good you are performing in your job.
Kind regards
pests .....while we have an unfair, unrealistic aversion to them-
they can spread diseases, damage crops, damage homes, etc
as long as you don't go out of your way..(or the clients way) to kill these animals, I think it's okay. It sucks for them that they don't have the intellect to realize where we have laid down boundaries, so when they invade our domains by dumb luck or instinct to get food and what not...
they must die..
I seem to remember a story of the Buddha,
He asked his disciple to prepare a bath for him...
but the bathtub was full of insects and stuff..
the disciple didn't know what to do...
and the Buddha told him something like,
you have to kill sometimes, if you do it without anger, with compassion,
with logic.
You know I wouldn't mind being killed if I knew I had to be killed for some understandable reason.... hmmm? i wonder if that's true:D
The Karmic affect of harming beings is sickness and short life. It is better for your familys sake to keep looking and not go down the wrong path.
I know its very hard to follow the precepts - all of them - and I have for 2 decades. But I have never not eaten and have never had any major sickness and led a pretty happy life.
The Suttas also say that following the 5 precepts leads to a heavenly rebirth and not dying from an accident before your time. Your death will be easy and be from old age.
Metta
David at Dhammasukha.org
All they had to do is prepare another bath!
Killing is not ok.
david
This is superstition.
More superstition. Some people live very healthy & moral lives and die young whilst others live unhealthy & immoral lives and die old.
In Thailand, Bhikkhu Thanissaro's guru was Ajahn Lee Dhammadaro, who died very young.
My father spent most of his life fishing as a hobby. He is 87 years old, older than the Buddha was, and was just given an additional 10 years to live by his doctors.
Not all karma is deadly or mortal. Whilst I do not fish nor recommend it, such behaviour is rooted in survival kamma. It does not intrinsically harm oneself however it is an obstacle to higher spiritual development.
People would ask: "How did your monastery end up with so many dogs, cats & chickens?"
The answer was: "The dogs were introduced to protect young novices from tigers. The tigers will eat the dogs instead of the novice children".
"The cats were introduced to control the rats, which caused various problems and ate the dhamma books".
"The chickens were introduced to control very large termites that would viciously bite the feet and bodies of people plus threaten the buildings".
In times of population pressure & environmental imbalance, forms of pest control are required.
Whilst a monk cannot accept food suspected or known to be killed specifically for a monk, the Buddha understood the reality of the human condition.
:smilec:
.
This was in 1959.
I don't know if he still eats meat, given the advances made in nutrition and medicine, since then.
As you can see, there are varying opinions regarding the answer to your question and in these replies there is more than meets the eye.
My opinion, since you asked, is that you should continue at the job you're currently in and think about the good results that come from doing that job, as Dhamma Dhatu said. You could also do metta practices as Mrs. Cogan and Palzang and others suggested. And of course, keep looking for different work.
We must start where we're at. Not all of us become devout and almost perfect Buddhists as soon as we decide to follow The Path. For many of us, our commitment grows over time. On a discussion board such as this there is no way to tell how deeply committed a poster is unless they specifically tell us. So for example, if you had said in your post that you were a very deeply committed and devout Buddhist who has been practicing for many years and your job was having a very serious affect on your mind, my response would have been different.
The opinion I'm giving you is also for the sake of flexibility of mind. My mother converted from Protestantism to Catholicism in order to marry my papa and when she first converted she vowed to herself that she'd be the best and most devout Catholic she could be. This resulted in some very rigid thinking and acting on her part for the first few years, so I am told. It made her and everyone else quite miserable until she realized her folly and began seeing things from as many different angles as she could. This made her much wiser, kinder, and more pleasant to be around. It also made her a better Catholic.
Rigid thinking, also known as black or white thinking, is problematic on many levels and in the end it tends to cause suffering. It is much better to have flexibility of mind, compassion for yourself as well as others, and the wise discernment to know that although we want to live as close to the Buddhist ideal as we can, we must start where we we're at and move forward and that often means three steps forward, two steps back...;).
I wish peace and joy to you and your family and may you find employment more suited to you in the new year.
No offense, I understand you are trying to help, but much like Yeshe elsewhere did on this forum, I think you are taking a very black&white stance towards this issue, which in itself is already as tough as it is.
Next to advising; to then proceed - what I perceive as judging (or a derivative form of it) - is not necessarily going to help matters.
I read on the internet that:
"Buddhism teaches not to judge others. Since we are fallible."
I say this because a few of the more "orthodox-seeming" (for lack of a better word) Buddhists members on this forum tend to forget that although very admirable, some people also live worldly lives. You cannot just say, well tough, never mind the family, they'll manage. It's just not that simple? Is it people?
I hear meditation can f.e. be a solution, until a better job comes up.
BTW... I don't like the killing of animals, however extermination is a legitimate job and necessary sometimes... whether I like it or not.
I'm sorry to hear that you've been laid off, but unfortunately, this is a decision only you can ultimately make. The bad news is, Buddhism generally frowns up this kind of work. Not only should we attempt to refrain from the taking of life as per the first precept, but the Buddha advised his lay-followers to avoid certain livelihoods—those dealing in weapons, human beings, meat, intoxicants and poison (AN 5.177).
That said, you also have your family to look out for. It's not my place to tell you what to do, but I'll give you my advice. If this is all you're able to do right now to support your family, then at least try to have compassion for the insects you must sacrifice in order to survive while actively looking for another job. Keep in mind, the exact wording is "a lay follower should not engage in five types of business." I'm sure the Buddha was aware that sometimes we're forced to do things we don't want to do in order to survive. We simply try to do the best we can with what we're given.
And if you find it difficult to forgive yourself or over overcome any guilt you might have, I suggest taking time each day to practice meditation, especially metta-bhavana (loving-kindness meditation), and dedicate all of the merit from cultivating wholesome mental states to the insects you may have killed. I've personally found this practice helpful in overcoming feelings of guilt for the things that I've done which I'm unable to make up for in any other way, and perhaps it'll help you too.
Oh... no of course, that was only in reference to judging a fellow member of this forum
Imho the issue is optimal combination of the worldly life (and it's responsibilities!!) and the Buddhist philosophy.
--- --- ---
Oops MODERATOR, meant these consecutive post to be one post... sorry...
It's true the Buddha didn't single out which type (or types) of poison he was referring to; but considering the first precept, I think we can reasonably assume that the Buddha would probably not make an exception for the use of poison to kill animals or insects. In fact, I can't imagine the Buddha would support the use of poison to kill anything, let alone consider it a type of right livelihood.
Perhaps this position makes me a bit of a doctrinaire and dogmatic, but it's consistent with the teachings of the Buddha. The only thing the Buddha ever condoned the killing of was anger (SN 1.71).
Nevertheless, the advice that the Buddha gives — from the precepts (including the first) to the noble eightfold path (including the fifth factor) — is given for a reason; namely, it helps lead to the end of suffering. They're not rules to be followed for their own sake; they're guidelines for practice. We're free to disregard them if we so wish, but it can't be denied that they're integral parts of the Buddha's path.
I was going to leave this thread alone, but since it has degenerated into members finding fun terms to insult others:
There is no Buddhism without the doctrine and dogma - the 8FP is established both as doctrine and dogma, as Buddha is not around to amend it. Advice to follow the 8FP may be a counsel of perfection, but it is the striving for that perfection which makes someone a follower of the Buddhist path.
'Right Livelihood' is an area in which we have choice, albeit constrained, so we should make that choice, as Buddhists, based on doctrine, not on personal preference, comfort, or even, at the other extreme, feelings of guilt.
To advise someone to defer that decision and carry on causing death by poisoning is not something I can find to have any basis in Buddhism, aside from the compassion one feels for both the poisoner and the poisoned.
It would seem some here in recent posts feel insulting other members is in order, something which is far from a 'fun' thing to engage in, with smileys, bearing in mind the seriousness of the OP's position.
Given the choice of doctrine over a 'pick 'n mix' adherence to the aspects of Buddhism we like, I think the advice here should be based on sound doctrine related to the OP's dilemma regarding behaviour 'as a Buddhist'.
If that makes me doctrinal or dogmatic, then that's fine, as unlike some here, I prefer to use the words positively, as accurately describing a follower of the 8FP, rather than pejoratively.
I have already given many examples of pest control in the monastic situation.
If a person's home was under threat from termites, crops under threat from insects or household with children under threat from disease carrying nasties, the buddha would not fly in in the time it would take a strong man to straighten his elbow to stop our local pest control man by performing a feat as he did with Angulimala.
The Buddha taught people to be prudent. Where I live, if one does not protect their home from termites, one is not prudent.
I do not agree your views are consistent. The Buddha taught karma is intention.
We can have intention to adhere to doctrine such as the 8FP. There is no inconsistency here that I see.
Many obstacles may arise which hinder us, but surely we should not actively pursue them, as in the case of accepting a job which is an obstacle to Right Livelihood.
The intention in the examples you gave is to protect the home, crops etc.
Preventing the potential for other beings to cause harm in our lives is surely better than killing them once they are doing so.
I treat wood in my home to prevent insects boring into it. If there are already insects in the wood I wait until they have flown. It is not my intention to kill. Surely this is different from waking with the intention of killing, completing that action many times, and then repeating the same the next day.
I also use DEET to keep the mosquitoes away, and use a net. I don't kill them. Intention to prevent is better than intention to harm them by spraying or swatting. I have even heard of a tale where a monk allows the mosquitoes to feed on him as an act of compassion, without thought for his own safety - extreme, but maybe less extreme than DDT.
I understand you don't see it that way, and that's fine, but I'm not sure how I'm confusing the results with the method. The precepts (including the first) are the foundation for the method. The eightfold path (including the fifth factor) is the method. I've said nothing about the results.
And I never said that one has to have perfect adherence to the precepts. I simply gave someone my advice on the matter, which was do the job until they can find another one.
Sometimes one must say things that are unendearing and disagreeable because they are, nonetheless, beneficial. It may be a burden to look for another job, but I think that's less of a burden than having a job one is unhappy with.
Yes, but your examples, assuming for the moment the Buddha himself would have approved of them, are a bit different than a person purposefully placing down poison knowing that it will kill insects.
Certainly, even by Buddhist standards, the lives of insects aren't held above those of human beings, but I still find such a profession inconsistent with the first precept and the the fifth factor of the eightfold path. I hate to burden Buddhists with the Buddha's teachings, but that's kind of what they're there for.
As I've said, they're not rules to be followed for their own sake; they're guidelines for practice. We're free to disregard them if we so wish, but it can't be denied that they're integral parts of the Buddha's path.
Yes, he did, but if you're suggesting that you can purposefully put down poison in strategic locations, knowing that doing so will kill whatever insects it's intended for, and it doesn't violate the first precept, then the precept is effectively meaningless.
Well said, Yeshe. That's the crux of what I'm trying to say as well (although I like the way you've said it a lot better).