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.
Killing Insects/bugs?
LostLight
Veteran
This is one of the few parts of Buddhism that is still very debatable to me. I've hated bugs since before I can remember, I always felt that they were like little robots which could not think or feel, whose only goal was population control of sentient beings (ex mosquitoes killing people). I wouldn't go out of my way to kill them, but if they got in my house I would immediately dispose of them without even thinking. After becoming a Buddhist, I stopped hating bugs (I had to haha). I stopped killing completely and no matter what I would try to relocate bugs that got in the way inside my house (Sometimes they'd die along the way and I would feel bad). I dislike bugs because of what they are, but I don't hold grudges on them like before. I figured that it was bad killing the bugs not because of their death, but because when I killed them it was either out of anger or fear. I still don't count bugs very highly, and I honestly put them in the same category as plants even if I won't kill them. While it's not something known for sure, what do you all think about bugs and the value of their lives?
Are certain animals ranked differently according to their karmic penalty or is it provisional?
Would it be worse to kill a cat than a cock roach etc?
If intent is a factor then would you recieve a lighter Karmic penalty for killing someone in self-defence or by accident?
Humans can be reborn as insects correct? If so, then aren't they stuck in that form forever? Bugs can't think, and therefore can't build up ANY karma whatsoever. They'd never be able to progress or regress, and would be stuck like that for all eternity.
I know this is a lot of questioning, but answering as many would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to broaden my perspective.
Are certain animals ranked differently according to their karmic penalty or is it provisional?
Would it be worse to kill a cat than a cock roach etc?
If intent is a factor then would you recieve a lighter Karmic penalty for killing someone in self-defence or by accident?
Humans can be reborn as insects correct? If so, then aren't they stuck in that form forever? Bugs can't think, and therefore can't build up ANY karma whatsoever. They'd never be able to progress or regress, and would be stuck like that for all eternity.
I know this is a lot of questioning, but answering as many would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to broaden my perspective.
0
Comments
I really don't think talking about different degrees is either necessary or relevant.
It's the intention, not the reason.
Try to avoid it.
I'm careful around bugs as I see that their decision making process is very different to mine and we have different priorities - I think their lives have as much value as any other form of existence / expression - what value each person attributes to anything else is subjective however. Worse in the sense that you relate more to a cat as it closer resembles your condition
Related to bugs, obviously animals in the wild eat other animals. But we have a pet that eats live animals too, and we buy animals to feed to this pet. There is no other way to keep this pet alive, yet I find myself feeling bad for purchasing other animals to feed this one.
Theoretical discussions are good however thought experiments can stretch a point beyond recognition - just as an explanation of sub-atomic physics relates poorly to big physics but it does not mean that either are invalid.
I'll bite your scenario - probably the baby as it is helpless and the cockroach can look after himself - I will smash a window to give little cockroach a chance - likely though he'll be safer than me or the baby... I guess there my approach is determined by need rather than comparative value.
At the time, I felt bad about the ants. However, what made me feel bad more than anything was the thought that in killing them, I was not being a good buddhist. So really, it was a self-image thing, which is about as egoistical as one can get. Certainly, no actual tears were shed over the ants' demise. I would do the same again if necessary (though I hope that it will not be, ever again). However, I am aware of one thing, and it is this: I took no pleasure whatsoever in killing those critters. To me, it seems next to impossible to really, really feel compassion for ants (though it is possible to deceive oneself into thinking that one does).
Looking at what seems to be my place in the world, I think I'll work at being kinder to those more like me (including animals, who, unlike ants, obviously show that they suffer in various ways). When I am satisfied that this project is taking reasonable shape, I will try to find ways to accommodate pests like ants. (Unfortunately, to reach this stage will take a long time, I am sure.)
Until then, I shall work on reducing any tendency not to care at all about ants, bugs etc. I will never deliberately kill them (in annoyance, for example), but will be careful not to even hurt them if this is possible. I shall not buy sticky fly-papers or wasp-sprays, because to do so will tend to make me even more uncaring than I already am, and because really, flies and wasps are only a minor problem. I will allow for the fact that my wisdom, such as it is, is very imperfect, and that some dilemmas (such as whether to buy meat, killed maybe with cruelty, to feed my pets) may be insoluble for the time being. I shall look for ways of being humane in all the ways I can. And I shall keep on reminding myself that, as far as I can tell, I did not create the world with all its pain.
For me, it's a personality thing and it's not so much a "Does this make me a bad Buddhist?" thing. When I was 7 years old, I rescued dozens of worms off the road after a rain shower. I was on my way to the school bus, and didn't want the worms to be run over, so I put them in my pocket. Needless to say, this did the worms no favors and they died in my pocket. As much as I dislike spiders, I do my best to pick them up and release them outside (where I hope they eat a lot of bugs!). I stopped traffic on the highway by my house to get out and move dozens of turtles off the road in the past couple weeks. But bugs that bite are the one thing I just cannot get around! Perhaps when I slap a bug and it dies after biting me, that is that bugs karma
If one considers the overall scheme of systems there is drive to greater entropy - if one can accept that we are not the pinnacle (or there is no pinnacle) then the suggestion from natural systems around us is that we are just one 'type' - hierarchy beyond grades / levels of complexity is subjective spin.
In considering an insect's condition, there may be value in considering that to another type, we may well be as insects.
I think I saw this on a documentary on Pete Tosh - maybe called RedX - there was a guy on there (think he was a rasta) who says "I cant eat fish as I cant take a life to save a life because fish love life like I do".
In that I took that the drive that perhaps to a human eye is non-sentient in an insect say is perhaps the same drive that drives me to experience what is 'love' to me and what is expressed in a medium that I consider is sentience.
It is weighted to create the dilemma - on one hand, it is impliedly accepted that the fire will have all the attributes of a real fire however on the other the choice presented is manipulated to create the thought experiment - my answer could well have been that I doubt i would notice a cockroach in the panic to evacuate - if the scenario is say that I pick up the baby and then notice a cage in the apartment that has a pet rat in it say then yes - I would likely do things in order of appearance (so if the cage is nearer, open that first then pick up baby) - if I can save the baby but could not save the rat, say there was an insurmountable barrier then what can I do? I suspect that if baby and rat are interchanged it would still be the same answer when faced with an insurmountable barrier.
I think that my drive would be need and opportunity rather than the comparable value of each life - I can't know until I am in that burning apartment...
I happened to notice there was a very young snake in my window well. Very curious to try to get into the house. I live in Colorado, and we have several species of rattlesnakes in this specific area. Baby rattlers' rattles are not always already formed or visible, and I'm not good at snake identification anyways.
Choice 1 -- crawl into the window well and try to capture it with my hands.
Choice 2 -- kill it.
Choice 3 -- call pest control, have them take a couple of days to get here, and then pay them over $300 to get rid of the snake.
Sorry, that snake is now a dead snake. I was sorry to have to do. If it were outside of my immediate property I wouldn't think of harming it. Rescued a baby rabbit in the window well just a few weeks ago.
What is compassion & love and how do we best manifest it in this moment?
I'll see your real scenario and raise you one of my own - years ago I travelled in Tunisia -we stayed in the desert one night - we were halfway through setting up camp when one of the guys with us noticed a horned viper and apparently there was a nest or a collection - the plan was to kill them there and then as it was too close to our camp and despite our vibrations, we were in their space so they may come in at night... the locals seemed very comfortable with this - I could not allow it - the only other alternative was for us to move camp but that would have meant us going to another set spot and it would take an extra 2 hours + effort (with clearing, driving and setting again plus we had to double back to pick the rest of the route the next day) - it was presented as a major b*llache which was almost inconceivable - in the end I paid them the same price as for the entire tour as a tip so they would leave the snakes alone and we moved - they thought I was mad but it was ok - the snakes lived to fight another day.
(1) Abstaining from the taking of life (pāṇātipātā veramaṇī)
Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword,
conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings.28
“Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other
human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being”
(pāṇī, satta) is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes,
this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings;
though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining
attribute of a sentient being.
The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of
life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that
all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential
determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives
a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as
the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of
action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the
secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it.
While the Buddha's statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later
commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an
erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment,
which we shall briefly summarize here.29 The treatise points out that the taking of life may have
varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables
governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there
is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former
being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual
potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities
of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual
qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act.
The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed,
hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight
increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated.
The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the
strength of the defilements.
The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the
development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying
life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment
to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the
second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and
harmlessness.
Take a 5' stick and screw an eyelet into the end. Take a 7' piece of thin rope and tie one end to the eyelet. Pull an open loop of the rope through the eyelet & ta da.. a restraining tool anyone can use from a safe distance.
Note.. Not recommended for bears or people with annoying posts.
One can also leave a thin escape board on an angle in a window well so it doesn't become an inadvertent animal trap.
But just trying to minimize our destructiveness is still an excellent mindfulness & compasionate practise on its own.
I live with nothing poisonous thank goodness, but bears, wolves, and coyotes. We have to do much to learn about the animals we share space with to make the best of a situation that is far more difficult for them than for us (us moving our houses into their habitats I mean). Sometimes the answer isn't always easy when the issue is already happening, but it's good to learn from it to take steps to prevent it in the future.
My legs are constantly covered in itchy spots that are almost scarred from scratching.
I will deal with karma, I am truly not trying to make light of a serious question but waking up most mornings with more bites is driving me bonkers.
I have social worker friends who every day have to take their work clothes off at the front door and fire them into the washer & dryer. In my area (Vancouver) they won't allow the superheating of homes so it's ugly invasive pesticides and having to leave the house vacant for a few days.
I actually stopped visiting a meditation group because they thought it was acceptable to tell me after a meditation period that they had a bad bedbug investation on the carpet we were sitting on
Hey I will say that it is helping me declutter even one more level! I want nothing extra and fabric lying around.
The reality was worse. They iniatially just said that next weeks meditation would be closed. I aked why? They said they were going to have some cleaning work done.
A weeks notice to get some cleaning done seemed odd and so It was only after I pressed the questioning further did they sheepishly admit to the infestation.
The sheer inconsiderateness of the situation still surprises me today but what really haunts me was my response, which was just to leave, instead of standing up and pointing out a serious mistake in a teaching.
dog's life , then can i go ahead and kill the dogs?
we kill very sick dogs but we dont kill very sick people. why?
I am a decision maker for my parents if they are in a life support choice where they cannot communicate. I cannot be 100% sure that i will make the right decision but we have talked about their wishes. I think the intention of following their wishes, along with not fearing death (my mom has worked in elder services for decades, she is well aware of the process), will be the best way to have clear intentions.
"Recent figures indicate that there are more than 200 million insects for each human on the planet! A recent article in The New York Times claimed that the world holds 300 pounds of insects for every pound of humans."
But the early Buddhists didn't know that. This was before scientists had ever studied the brain and how determined complexity is what provides the higher mental functions. To the early Buddhists, if it moved around and reacted, then it must be conscious or "sentient". They had an entirely different understanding of the world than we do. In their world, it made sense that insects could be little human-like minds at work, constrained by the limits of the insect body of course.
Today we know different. Today we know it takes a certain complexity in the brain itself for consciousness and self-awareness and such higher order thought processes to exist. So the definition provided in the sutras about what is a "sentient being" needs to be adjusted to current knowledge.
Or, you can just wave your hands and claim it's some sort of magic at work, and somehow a human mind exists inside an ant.
That said, while I certainly don't believe a mosquito has the same type of brain as I do, more and more science is showing that beings have things that we didn't know they had, because we just didn't understand them. Plants communicate as communities and can even "help" each other and respond when neighboring plants are cut. There was just an article somewhere yesterday about how animals are much more aware (as in self-aware they exist compared to other individuals) than we previously thought. Enough so that some scientists are having moral dilemmas over studying them. Those animals that are self-aware, do they accumulate karma? What about animals where their survival requires them to kill other animals? Apes, elephants, dolphins, all show much evidence of being self-aware and even aware that their peers are able to think and be aware as well.
"Insects may have tiny brains, but they can perform some seriously impressive feats of mental gymnastics. According to a growing number of studies, some insects can count, categorize objects, even recognize human faces -- all with brains the size of pinheads...On a smaller scale, scientists are finally moving past the idea that locusts, ants, bees and other insects are simple machines that respond to events in predictable ways, said Sarah Farris, an evolutionary neurobiologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Study after study now shows that insects can, in fact, change their behavior depending on the circumstances...."It's wonderful to see that insects are finally being compared equally with vertebrate animals," she added. "They have smaller brains, but they still have complex enough brains to do these things."
http://news.discovery.com/animals/tiny-insect-brains-intelligence.html
We do need to start treating them differently. We need to stop treating them like automaton robots that have no mind.
There is no clasification or justification to what is OK to harm.
A Buddhist practise is just trying to minimize that harm.