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.
First Precept - Do No Harm. (where does it say "Oh by the way though, if you want to kill reptiles because you're hiding behind the wildly inaccurate and blinkered opinion that 'they're dangerous' go ahead, we'll let you off on that one...."
No, intentional harm is wrong, and nowhere does it quantify what you should not be harming, so it doesn't work by exclusion either. D'uh! :banghead:
First, killing a sentient creature for no reason is wrong.
But, wait a minute. What is sentience? In past discussions we have not been able to come to agreement on that.
But wait another minute...if not you, any number of posters on our forum have said that in Buddhism there is no "right" or "wrong".
And wait another minute...reptiles are potentially dangerous. First, there are types that are venomous (try living in Thailand!, and here in Colorado we have rattlers, and in Virginia we had copperheads). And I personally know people who have had encounters with non-poisonous snakes who have ended up in the hospital.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Insignificant? No relevance to Buddhism?
You have to be kidding, right? PLEASE tell me you're not serious....
Do me a favour - study some more. Buddhism isn't "I pick what I want and leave what I disagree with." You can't 'pick and choose what to adhere to, then state that you can interpret what you do choose, in your own way. Do no Harm means exactly that. And for you to state that it has no relevance to Buddhism is breathtakingly ignorant. I mean really, I'm shocked at your lack of insight in this matter, I really am.
I have to side with @federica on this. Whenever possible and with whatever type of life, I believe we have to protect and preserve that life. We can't pick and choose which life is valid and which life is not. Buddhism is built on compassion for ALL living things. Granted, I may take out a few bugs while driving my car to work, but it wasn't intentional. When I find a spider in my shower I have a choice. Kill it or relocate it. I will always choose relocation. I recently moved to Hawai'i, I have never had to deal with some of the bugs I've encountered. The other evening I met a cockroach that was so large I could read his little name tag. Hank (per his name tag) was swept up with the broom and dust pan and escorted back outside. The first precept states "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from ... harming living beings." Other variations state do not kill, do no harm, etc. I think it's pretty cut and dry.
Everyone draws their own line/s as to what is an 'acceptable' killing and what isn't. Come on now, we all have to agree on that, because it's an obvious fact, isn't it?
Some people think killing animals that have been bred & raised for food is OK, but at the same time cringe at the idea that someone would shoot cute, sweet "Bambi" in the woods- even if they intend to eat it. Why? Well, the biggest reason is because there's no 'need' to kill/eat Bambi .... Unless you live like Survivor Man out in the wilderness somewhere and legitimately survive on hunted food, alone. So if there is no survival need- then hunting is strictly an EGO thing and unnecessary. (I tend to agree with this, myself)
Some people draw the line between "intelligent" creatures and non/less-intelligent. Some people draw the line between warm-blooded mammals and cold-blooded reptiles. Some people draw the line between insects/bugs and all other creatures. Hell, some people draw the line between cute, cuddly fuzzy animals and "ugly" animals.
Some people draw numerous lines and apply levels of 'sentience' or consideration to all creatures according to some other criteria - whether it's size, intelligence, position on the food chain, relative/significant 'danger' to humans, culturally accepted food source - or not, and the list can go on and on. (I, personally, fall into this last category).
Where does Buddhism say this line falls? Well again, there are certainly different interpretations to the first precept, and even (slightly) different literal translationss that can be explained in different cultural aspects and languages.
However, all that said, to state killing has no significance at all in Buddhism and its precepts.... is way waaaaaaay out there in erroneous left field!
I'm not even sure someone who would say such a thing - while claiming even the most BASIC knowledge of Buddhism - wasn't just pulling our legs!
My point is, one doesn't have to make an issue out of this. If you dont want to kill, don't kill. If you want to kill, do it. It is too insignificant an issue, so 'overthinking' it will do no good. It has no relevance to Buddhism either way.
It is not correct to say that killing or not killing has no relevance to Buddhism. It has everything to do with Buddhism! It is the first precept! The precepts are not considered insignificant to any learned Buddhist students or teachers. The Buddha himself taught that it's extremely relevant.
But wait another minute...if not you, any number of posters on our forum have said that in Buddhism there is no "right" or "wrong".
That does not agree with what the Buddha taught. The Buddha said there are plenty of things that are right and plenty of things that are wrong. And they are clearly laid out in the scriptures. All one has to do is read them. Killing is "wrong action". Not killing is "right action".
The Five Wonderful Precepts by Thich Nhat Hanh, Zen Master 1. Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I vow to cultivate compassion and to learn the ways of protecting the lives of people, animals and plants. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to condone any act of killing in the world,inmythinking, and in my way of life.
@vinlyn I thought the same thing when I read "plants". But after some thought I concluded that this included the needless destruction of a plant. A plant isn't destroyed by picking a fruit or a flower. In fact many plants do better when pruned or harvested. But destroying a forest or needlessly cutting down a tree does a lot of damage.
@vinlyn I thought the same thing when I read "plants". But after some thought I concluded that this included the needless destruction of a plant. A plant isn't destroyed by picking a fruit or a flower. In fact many plants do better when pruned or harvested. But destroying a forest or needlessly cutting down a tree does a lot of damage.
Depends on the crop. Some crops have to be plowed under each year with new seeds planted.
@vinlyn I thought the same thing when I read "plants". But after some thought I concluded that this included the needless destruction of a plant. A plant isn't destroyed by picking a fruit or a flower. In fact many plants do better when pruned or harvested. But destroying a forest or needlessly cutting down a tree does a lot of damage.
Depends on the crop. Some crops have to be plowed under each year with new seeds planted.
Yes, and as you stated the crop is replanted. Such as a timber grove that is cut down to produce lumber to build our homes, the forest is replanted. This is not needless, in fact I'd say it is skillful.
From a spider to a forest. I know there's a koan in there somewhere...
Let me be clear, some crops (corn and rice) are one year crops...when we harvest them the plants die. Back in western NYS, each year the old corn had to be plowed under...and died. Each year...in fact more than once a year...Thai farmers replant new rice.
And for me, end of this discussion. Pointless for me to go on.
I meant animal/insect killing specifically, not killing per se. Don't kill humans, that's obvious and in line with Buddhism. But I don't believe we need strict rules regarding animal or bug killing.
I meant animal/insect killing specifically, not killing per se. Don't kill humans, that's obvious and in line with Buddhism. But I don't believe we need strict rules regarding animal or bug killing.
Well what you 'believe' and what the Buddha TEACHES - are two different things. That's why I suggested you go study a little more, because some of the ideas you emphatically stated earlier, are clearly and blatantly incorrect.
Everyone draws their own line/s as to what is an 'acceptable' killing and what isn't. Come on now, we all have to agree on that, because it's an obvious fact, isn't it?
The logical conclusion of that line of thinking is murder, war, terrorism and genocide.
Most people have no clue. Even a small spider bite hurts like hell. Also lizards, even very small ones, are a nuisance in that they sometimes run on the floor. Roaches fly and create trouble. Eliminating them is like doing them a favor, lol.
Most people have no clue. Even a small spider bite hurts like hell. Also lizards, even very small ones, are a nuisance in that they sometimes run on the floor. Roaches fly and create trouble. Eliminating them is like doing them a favor, lol.
I think you're being a bit too cavalier about this. "Lizards, even very small ones, are a nuisance in that they sometimes run on the floor"...depends on the lizard. In Thailand we had a few...the chameleon types we actually got a kick out. But there were also some that were dangerous.
"Eliminating them is like doing them a favor"? What's realistic or funny about that?
Just one thing: Microchipping of animals is just the worst idea I have ever heard. After that, the next step is micro-chipping humans. You can kill me before I will allow you to put a tracking device in my body. That's a world I do not want to live in. I can endure almost anything else, but I've drawn the line there and I'm not crossing it. And if you come across my line, you better be prepared to kill me because that is the only cause that I am willing to die for. Crazy? Maybe. But I will not willingy be a part of a fascist universe.
Oh and I have nothing against spiders or any other bug. They can kill me too because I don't want to have to kill them first. That's just bad form.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Microchipping animals is a responsible thing for an owner to do. If the animal runs off, is injured or gets lost/stolen, then there is a device to remedy that. It's a security/safety measure that ensures an animal's continued well-being, or at least, ownership. Microchipping humans has been discussed before - but I don't see the problem, myself. You think that this is an invasion of privacy? Don't you realise that everything that needs to be known about you - is already known? The information would just all be in one place. Everything already 'on record' is available, if someone really wants to know anything about you - they can find it. And have you any idea how many missing persons would be 'found'? How child kidnapping/trafficking could be a thing of the past? I don't dispute the negatives - but let us not deny and overlook the positives.
Sorry, I disagree. Respectfully, I disagree. And that's why I wouldn't plan to stop this action if others wanted it. It's your pet, it's your choice. A wild animal, however, is not your pet. Period. It's your body, it's your choice. It's my body, it's my choice. This is the closest thing that my maleness can get to having a "pro-choice" stance, and I'm using it. It's not about paranoia about my information being accumulated, it's about not giving people an uneeded temptation to abuse power. That's why I say you can kill me. I only want power over me. I view people who want power over other people as having a serious psychological problem. I'm not suggesting that you have that problem, but those who want to accumulate that data and horde (hoard-sp?) it are the ones with the problem. Agreeing with it merely enables these problems.
It's just a personal choice and I feel no responsibilty to feel otherwise.
Most people have no clue. Even a small spider bite hurts like hell. Also lizards, even very small ones, are a nuisance in that they sometimes run on the floor. Roaches fly and create trouble. Eliminating them is like doing them a favor, lol.
I think you're being a bit too cavalier about this. "Lizards, even very small ones, are a nuisance in that they sometimes run on the floor"...depends on the lizard. In Thailand we had a few...the chameleon types we actually got a kick out. But there were also some that were dangerous.
"Eliminating them is like doing them a favor"? What's realistic or funny about that?
We are giving them a chance to get a better birth next time.
@TheBeejAbides I agree about the microchipping. Not only is it intrusive it doesn't always work. Fair enough if people want to volunteer for it, but animals have no say in the matter.
@music Forgive me if I'm misjudging you, but I get the impression you're saying these things to get a rise out of people.
@TheBeejAbides I agree about the microchipping. Not only is it intrusive it doesn't always work. Fair enough if people want to volunteer for it, but animals have no say in the matter.
@music Forgive me if I'm misjudging you, but I get the impression you're saying these things to get a rise out of people.
I am human, and human happiness comes first. Not saying we must purposely go around and kill insects and animals, just that I don't think it's that big a deal. I care about humans dying in war or due to poverty. Not really interested in whether reptiles and spiders are having a good life in the neighborhood. Frankly, I am puzzled that some people are making a whole new dharma out of this fetish.
"The girls LOVE the bug vacuum. They don't mind getting close enough to suck the bugs up. This is been a HUGE improvement. Instead of the screaming fits, now they just run and get the bug vacuum. Way too cool and easier on me!!! Since we live in a humid environment, we have lots of spiders and bugs!!"
You don't have to get very close to the bug to catch it, and there's no smeary mess from killing it when you're done. The vacuum has a reverse switch, so you can blow the bugs safely out the nearest window.
*Note: If you get one, be sure to switch out the batteries--it ships with junky ones, and the suction is much improved once you replace them with good ones!
Frankly, I am puzzled that some people are making a whole new dharma out of this fetish.
"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak in the world." Sutta Nipata II,14
The Sutta Nipāta is generally considered to contain some of the oldest texts in the Pali canon, for what it's worth. Doesn't mean anyone has to accept the teachings, just that they're not new.
I am so afraid of spiders i cannot sleep/relax unless I know the spider is outside or........ erm..... dead (unfortunately my partner is the same)
any advice??
I don't know if it helps at all to think about it, but spiders do away with a lot of other insects (mosquitoes, for example). If you ignore a spider, generally it will disappear to some out-of-the way place where you won't likely encounter it again, and in the meantime will helpfully gobble up nasty biting things (towards which I also have compassion, but just sayin'.)
Frankly, I am puzzled that some people are making a whole new dharma out of this fetish.
"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak in the world." Sutta Nipata II,14
The Sutta Nipāta is generally considered to contain some of the oldest texts in the Pali canon, for what it's worth. Doesn't mean anyone has to accept the teachings, just that they're not new.
Again, read the whole paragraph instead of focusing on one final sentence and making an issue out of it.
Frankly, I am puzzled that some people are making a whole new dharma out of this fetish.
"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak in the world." Sutta Nipata II,14
The Sutta Nipāta is generally considered to contain some of the oldest texts in the Pali canon, for what it's worth. Doesn't mean anyone has to accept the teachings, just that they're not new.
Again, read the whole paragraph instead of focusing on one final sentence and making an issue out of it.
A teaching does not change its meaning simply because you happen to disagree with it. Take some time to review your knowledge and understanding of what the Suttas teach. And quit flaming.
Again, read the whole paragraph instead of focusing on one final sentence and making an issue out of it.
It's actually the opening instruction in the Buddha's advice to laymen:
"Now I will tell you the layman's duty. Following it a lay-disciple would be virtuous; for it is not possible for one occupied with the household life to realize the complete bhikkhu practice (dhamma).
"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.
"A disciple should avoid taking anything from anywhere knowing it (to belong to another). He should not steal nor incite another to steal. He should completely avoid theft.
"A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife.
"Having entered a royal court or a company of people he should not speak lies. He should not speak lies (himself) nor incite others to do so. He should completely avoid falsehood.
"A layman who has chosen to practice this Dhamma should not indulge in the drinking of intoxicants. He should not drink them nor encourage others to do so; realizing that it leads to madness. Through intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other heedless people to do likewise. He should avoid intoxication, this occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of foolish people.
Do not kill a living being; do not take what is not given; do not speak a lie; do not drink intoxicants; abstain from sexual intercourse; do not eat food at night, at the wrong time; do not wear flower-garlands nor use perfumes; use the ground as a bed or sleep on a mat. "This is called the eight-factored observance made known by the Awakened One who has reached the end of suffering.
"With a gladdened mind observe the observance day (uposatha), complete with its eight factors, on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the (lunar) fortnight and also the special holiday of the half month. In the morning, with a pure heart and a joyful mind, a wise man, after observing the uposatha, should distribute suitable food and drink to the community of bhikkhus. He should support his mother and father as his duty and engage in lawful trading. A layman who carries this out diligently goes to the devas called "Self-radiant."
I'm pretty sure no killing means no killing sentient (conscious) life whatsoever. So it applies even to ants and spiders. It doesn't apply to non-sentient life though, so plants aren't part of the prohibition.
"Specifically, if we take the example of killing, in order for the act of killing to have its complete and unmitigated power, five conditions must be present - a living being, the awareness of the existence of a living being, the intention to kill the living being, the effort or action of killing the living being, and the consequent death of the living being."
I watched a documentary years ago and this dude travelled the world looking at different religions, and he met this woman who was part of a larger group who sweep the ground and the things they sit on to remove the bacteria so they don't kill them. It absolutely wouldn't work, but that was the intention.
As for those bug vacuums, they really need to make the handles longer.
@RebeccaS, I guess it depends on what you consider to be conscious/aware/sentient. Bacteria don't fit that criteria in my opinion.
Yes, that is the point of contention. My impression has always been that sentience was determined by the five skandhas, which involve thought processes that include perception, conception, cognition, discrimination, thoughts and ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions...and more. And I don't see snakes as spiders (as per this thread) as having opinions or making decisions based on anything more than basic instinct.
That's not to say killing animals should be done for no reason or foolish reasons.
@vinlyn, Well we differ in opinion there. Sentience to me just means awareness or consciousness, and even bugs have that. That Buddhism says not to kill bugs just backs that up. We can kill bugs and animals, for sure, but we'll still be breaking the first precept in doing so. Doesn't matter how we rationalize it, we will still suffer the karmic consequences. So it's up to each person to decide what they will do; it's their choice. Monks and nuns aren't even supposed to dig in the ground, because they might kill insects or worms... and so those are considered sentient life, and killing them is breaking the first precept.
Hi thanks everyone! great replies, i bought a brilliant little device on amazon. like a brush that closes in a grabs hold of the spider so you can take it outside. and just in case i bought some spider repellent.... i will try not to kill them..... but if they get past my defenses then i cant promise anything!!
Comments
But, wait a minute. What is sentience? In past discussions we have not been able to come to agreement on that.
But wait another minute...if not you, any number of posters on our forum have said that in Buddhism there is no "right" or "wrong".
And wait another minute...reptiles are potentially dangerous. First, there are types that are venomous (try living in Thailand!, and here in Colorado we have rattlers, and in Virginia we had copperheads). And I personally know people who have had encounters with non-poisonous snakes who have ended up in the hospital.
You have to be kidding, right?
PLEASE tell me you're not serious....
Do me a favour - study some more.
Buddhism isn't "I pick what I want and leave what I disagree with." You can't 'pick and choose what to adhere to, then state that you can interpret what you do choose, in your own way.
Do no Harm means exactly that.
And for you to state that it has no relevance to Buddhism is breathtakingly ignorant.
I mean really, I'm shocked at your lack of insight in this matter, I really am.
I recently moved to Hawai'i, I have never had to deal with some of the bugs I've encountered. The other evening I met a cockroach that was so large I could read his little name tag. Hank (per his name tag) was swept up with the broom and dust pan and escorted back outside.
The first precept states "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from ... harming living beings." Other variations state do not kill, do no harm, etc.
I think it's pretty cut and dry.
Quotation from http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/precepts.html
Some people think killing animals that have been bred & raised for food is OK, but at the same time cringe at the idea that someone would shoot cute, sweet "Bambi" in the woods- even if they intend to eat it. Why?
Well, the biggest reason is because there's no 'need' to kill/eat Bambi .... Unless you live like Survivor Man out in the wilderness somewhere and legitimately survive on hunted food, alone. So if there is no survival need- then hunting is strictly an EGO thing and unnecessary. (I tend to agree with this, myself)
Some people draw the line between "intelligent" creatures and non/less-intelligent.
Some people draw the line between warm-blooded mammals and cold-blooded reptiles.
Some people draw the line between insects/bugs and all other creatures.
Hell, some people draw the line between cute, cuddly fuzzy animals and "ugly" animals.
Some people draw numerous lines and apply levels of 'sentience' or consideration to all creatures according to some other criteria - whether it's size, intelligence, position on the food chain, relative/significant 'danger' to humans, culturally accepted food source - or not, and the list can go on and on. (I, personally, fall into this last category).
Where does Buddhism say this line falls?
Well again, there are certainly different interpretations to the first precept, and even (slightly) different literal translationss that can be explained in different cultural aspects and languages.
However, all that said, to state killing has no significance at all in Buddhism and its precepts.... is way waaaaaaay out there in erroneous left field!
I'm not even sure someone who would say such a thing - while claiming even the most BASIC knowledge of Buddhism - wasn't just pulling our legs!
WOW.
My leg was feeling funny this whole time!
:P
From a spider to a forest. I know there's a koan in there somewhere...
And for me, end of this discussion. Pointless for me to go on.
That's why I suggested you go study a little more, because some of the ideas you emphatically stated earlier, are clearly and blatantly incorrect.
"Eliminating them is like doing them a favor"? What's realistic or funny about that?
Oh and I have nothing against spiders or any other bug. They can kill me too because I don't want to have to kill them first. That's just bad form.
It's a security/safety measure that ensures an animal's continued well-being, or at least, ownership.
Microchipping humans has been discussed before - but I don't see the problem, myself. You think that this is an invasion of privacy? Don't you realise that everything that needs to be known about you - is already known?
The information would just all be in one place.
Everything already 'on record' is available, if someone really wants to know anything about you - they can find it.
And have you any idea how many missing persons would be 'found'?
How child kidnapping/trafficking could be a thing of the past?
I don't dispute the negatives - but let us not deny and overlook the positives.
It's just a personal choice and I feel no responsibilty to feel otherwise.
I'm frankly appalled....
@music Forgive me if I'm misjudging you, but I get the impression you're saying these things to get a rise out of people.
"The girls LOVE the bug vacuum. They don't mind getting close enough to suck the bugs up. This is been a HUGE improvement. Instead of the screaming fits, now they just run and get the bug vacuum. Way too cool and easier on me!!! Since we live in a humid environment, we have lots of spiders and bugs!!"
You don't have to get very close to the bug to catch it, and there's no smeary mess from killing it when you're done. The vacuum has a reverse switch, so you can blow the bugs safely out the nearest window.
*Note: If you get one, be sure to switch out the batteries--it ships with junky ones, and the suction is much improved once you replace them with good ones!
The Sutta Nipāta is generally considered to contain some of the oldest texts in the Pali canon, for what it's worth. Doesn't mean anyone has to accept the teachings, just that they're not new.
Otherwise--the bug vacuum works like a charm
But let's use your logic. You should apparently be killed so that you could move on to your rebirth. The killer would be doing you a favor.
I doubt you really think that. But that's the logic you stated.
:eek2:
Can you see what a slippery slope this line of thinking can be? I wonder if the SS made jokes like this at the camps?
"Now I will tell you the layman's duty. Following it a lay-disciple would be virtuous; for it is not possible for one occupied with the household life to realize the complete bhikkhu practice (dhamma).
"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.
"A disciple should avoid taking anything from anywhere knowing it (to belong to another). He should not steal nor incite another to steal. He should completely avoid theft.
"A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife.
"Having entered a royal court or a company of people he should not speak lies. He should not speak lies (himself) nor incite others to do so. He should completely avoid falsehood.
"A layman who has chosen to practice this Dhamma should not indulge in the drinking of intoxicants. He should not drink them nor encourage others to do so; realizing that it leads to madness. Through intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other heedless people to do likewise. He should avoid intoxication, this occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of foolish people.
Do not kill a living being;
do not take what is not given;
do not speak a lie;
do not drink intoxicants;
abstain from sexual intercourse;
do not eat food at night, at the wrong time;
do not wear flower-garlands nor use perfumes;
use the ground as a bed or sleep on a mat.
"This is called the eight-factored observance made known by the Awakened One who has reached the end of suffering.
"With a gladdened mind observe the observance day (uposatha), complete with its eight factors, on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the (lunar) fortnight and also the special holiday of the half month. In the morning, with a pure heart and a joyful mind, a wise man, after observing the uposatha, should distribute suitable food and drink to the community of bhikkhus. He should support his mother and father as his duty and engage in lawful trading. A layman who carries this out diligently goes to the devas called "Self-radiant."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.14.irel.html
"Specifically, if we take the example of killing, in order for the act of killing to have its complete and unmitigated power, five conditions must be present - a living being, the awareness of the existence of a living being, the intention to kill the living being, the effort or action of killing the living being, and the consequent death of the living being."
http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud9.htm
Can we use bleach to clean?
I watched a documentary years ago and this dude travelled the world looking at different religions, and he met this woman who was part of a larger group who sweep the ground and the things they sit on to remove the bacteria so they don't kill them. It absolutely wouldn't work, but that was the intention.
As for those bug vacuums, they really need to make the handles longer.
That's not to say killing animals should be done for no reason or foolish reasons.
thanks everyone! great replies, i bought a brilliant little device on amazon. like a brush that closes in a grabs hold of the spider so you can take it outside. and just in case i bought some spider repellent.... i will try not to kill them..... but if they get past my defenses then i cant promise anything!!