Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Why is killing an insect considered as bad as killing a human in Buddhism?

TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
edited October 2013 in Buddhism Basics
When a human life is obviously worth much more than an insects?

Surely if Buddhism emphasizes how precious human lives are an how common animal loves are taking away a being's human life is taking away a lot more from a being than taking away a being's animal life?

Comments

  • I'm not sure that it is, but maybe for different reasons. A human life could be considered more precious because of the opportunity that we have to develop spiritual qualities, which, as far as we know, an insect doesn't have. I think most Buddhists would recognise this. A human also has more opportunities and faculties to benefit the lives of others, which, as far as we know, an insect doesn't have. I think most Buddhists would recognise this too. But, I think the problem that might arise is the mindset that would wish to kill an insect. This is the problem, and a mindset that wishes to kill an insect could be considered as bad as a mindset that wishes to kill a human.
    riverflowhowrobotfollowthepath
  • An insect loses everything it has when it dies. A person likewise. That being said I agree a human has more potential to learn spiritually by far.
  • Also there is an error in the title of the post. I can't understand what you are saying based on the title.
  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited October 2013
    I could be wrong, but I think the topic title should read:

    "Why is killing an insect considered as bad as killing a human in Buddhism?

    Am I correct? :)

    Moderator note: Title corrected.

    Anyway, to answer that -from my point of view- it's all about the 'act' of killing and the intent behind it .... not necessarily the 'value' or what is being killed.

    Personally I don't consider simple organisms or tiny brained animals and insects to be of the same value as higher level animals with larger, more complex brains, anyway. Mind you, I'm not saying they have no value.
    I don't take the Buddhist idea of "killing an insect is the same as killing your own mother or father..." literally. But I know this topic has come up before and there is a whole myriad of views on it. I'm just stating mine.....
    riverflow
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    There is some evidence that Buddhism was influenced by Ahimsa in Jainism
  • When I saw the thread title, I assumed it was some ancient, unsolvable koan.
    riverflow
  • betaboy said:

    When I saw the thread title, I assumed it was some ancient, unsolvable koan.

    What is the sound of one hand slapping.... a mosquito?
    lobsterzenffYishaiThePensum
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    I think that "-within reason." should be added onto your opening statement.

    Currently dealing with a small flea infestation (oh the joys of the country). Definitely not just going to allow this to get out of hand and make my animals suffer in the process/risk catching anything... all the pets now have a dose of flea killer and I don't feel ambivalent about it.

    But on the other hand, I recently just bought a bug vacuum that I'm super excited about and have been using it to kindly move bugs/spiders outside.

    Intention is everything.
    lobsterriverflowMaryAnne
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Zombiegirl, I gree with you that "within reason" is key here.

    I disagree totally that intention is everything. Example: the middle school girl that whacked an opposing field hockey player with her stick: "I didn't intend to break her leg." Vinlyn: "You're suspended for 5 days."
  • To complicate things (and sometimes I love to) rebirth could be dragged in.
    Killing the insect – in a beginningless universe – is killing the sentient being that once was your mother. And this sentient being could in a next life – due to your bad karma – be the one who kills you in return.
    Sentient beings are just sentient beings; the insect and your mother are different shapes of the same sentient being. That’s the idea, I think.

    It is not my idea, but it is a way of looking at Buddhism, and it would make all killing equally problematic.

  • zenff said:

    To complicate things (and sometimes I love to) rebirth could be dragged in.
    Killing the insect – in a beginningless universe – is killing the sentient being that once was your mother. And this sentient being could in a next life – due to your bad karma – be the one who kills you in return.
    Sentient beings are just sentient beings; the insect and your mother are different shapes of the same sentient being. That’s the idea, I think.

    It is not my idea, but it is a way of looking at Buddhism, and it would make all killing equally problematic.

    I think this idea is more a method to engage our practice with universal compassion. I think it is important to hold a mind that regards every living being with love and compassion. I think it's important to make the effort to release a wasp trapped on your window - not so much for the benefit of the wasp, but for the benefits that a mind that would help a wasp will express. In other words, if you have compassion for wasps and actively help them when in need then there is a much greater chance that you have will have compassion for other life forms too.
    lobsterriverflow
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    edited October 2013
    Sorry It's supposed to be "Why is killing an insect considered as bad as killing a person in Buddhism?", my mistake.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    corrected.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited October 2013
    In Buddhism, killing a sentient being is killing a sentient being. Both are considered damaging to your karma and leads to suffering so both should be avoided. However, it is a misreading of the Dharma to think that it says killing a bug and killing a human is equally damaging.

    It is true, though, that Buddhism focuses on individual life and individual conduct instead of ecosystems or societies. It's a reflection of the arahant solitary meditation and enlightenment practice that gave it birth. When practicing Buddhism means withdrawing from society and focusing all your effort on your own advancement, then a wider view doesn't get a lot of attention. That's an inherent flaw in many eyes that must be addressed. So killing disease carrying mosquitos or killing fish to feed starving children is just as wrong as killing the children? To an arahant, yes it was. Starving children or people suffering from malaria were only working out their inherited karma. That's the circle of birth and rebirth, karma, regrettable but hey, it's Samsara and life is full of suffering so all one can do is work to escape it. What's important is his own state of mind.

    But Buddhism is not a dead, static thing. Today we have both the circle of rebirth and the circle of life. The ancients didn't know bugs carried disease, or what caused disease at all except for karma, and they had no idea that an ecosystem depended on death as much as birth. So we have to work on fitting the core beliefs of Buddhism into what we know today. It's not easy. Take our modern "socially engaged Buddhism". Totally foreign to the Buddha, who considered the ills of society to be something one simply had to accept as unavoidable and withdraw from. He never taught we had a duty to change society. He considered killing wrong but didn't tell the King to stop waging war. He taught compassion but didn't do a thing about the starving orphans and widows or preach against slavery in his society. It was all about withdrawing and individual conduct.
    riverflow
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    @Cinorjer...very interesting and well written-post.

    Thank you for mentioning "socially engaged Buddhism", a term with which I was not familiar. I quickly Goggled it, and did a quick read about it, and want to learn more. I did just read Thich Nhat Hanh's 14 Precepts of Engaged Buddhism, and while I may not endorse it 100%, it's very interesting.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited October 2013
    vinlyn said:

    @Cinorjer...very interesting and well written-post.

    Thank you for mentioning "socially engaged Buddhism", a term with which I was not familiar. I quickly Goggled it, and did a quick read about it, and want to learn more. I did just read Thich Nhat Hanh's 14 Precepts of Engaged Buddhism, and while I may not endorse it 100%, it's very interesting.

    I also have reservations. I've spent a lifetime around passionate people involved in one cause or another and it's so easy to cross the line from working to help suffering people and help heal a damaged world to fighting a war against oppression or ignorance or capitalist excess or whatever. People fighting wars are never happy and the war is never won. But, the problem with the old system of withdrawing from the world behind temple walls is, there is no place left on this crowded world to withdraw to. Perhaps there never was and we were only fooling ourselves. I only know the people engaged in teaching Zen meditation in the prisons are trying to practice the Bodhisattva ideal instead of spending twelve hours a day in the temple zazen hall trying to guess the answer to a koan, and that engaged Buddhism is the type I prefer.
    MaryAnne
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran

    When a human life is obviously worth much more than an insects?

    Surely if Buddhism emphasizes how precious human lives are an how common animal loves are taking away a being's human life is taking away a lot more from a being than taking away a being's animal life?

    These beings have been cycling Samsara since beginingless time in the Lamrim we are taught to regard every single sentient being as being very dear to us like our kind mother regardless of what form they come in.


  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    caz said:

    When a human life is obviously worth much more than an insects?

    Surely if Buddhism emphasizes how precious human lives are an how common animal loves are taking away a being's human life is taking away a lot more from a being than taking away a being's animal life?

    These beings have been cycling Samsara since beginingless time in the Lamrim we are taught to regard every single sentient being as being very dear to us like our kind mother regardless of what form they come in.


    So I assume you would never take an antibiotic or disinfectant to save your own life?

  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Zombiegirl, I gree with you that "within reason" is key here.

    I disagree totally that intention is everything. Example: the middle school girl that whacked an opposing field hockey player with her stick: "I didn't intend to break her leg." Vinlyn: "You're suspended for 5 days."

    "Intention is everything," is in regards to the topic at hand. In your case, you are teaching the lesson that heedlessness can lead to injury. Mistakes can happen regardless, but of course, some of that is within our control. Much like the reason that alcohol, although common, is advised against in the 5 precepts. By itself, it isn't a huge problem, but it can lead to heedlessness.

    But that's not exactly the same point as this topic. In my post, I brought up two opposing ideas... One was that I've recently been dealing with a flea infestation and do not feel bad for killing them. That is because my intention is not to simply kill the fleas, my intention is actually to protect my animals and unfortunately, sometimes that's just the way it goes. But the next point I brought up is that I have been using my bug vacuum to safely transport bugs out of my home because I have no reason to wish to kill them if they pose no harm to me, although, many people do just kill a spider when they see one in their home. This is what I mean by 'intention is everything'. I try to live as peacefully as I can in this world, but sometimes even ahimsa can be taken to extreme.
    riverflowlobster
  • ToshTosh Veteran
    I don't think bacteria or viruses are classed as sentient. I also prefer the precepts to include the words 'refrain from'. We should refrain from killing, but that doesn't mean we should never kill. There could be a situation where killing is absolutely the right thing to do; but in general we should refrain from it - not kill willy nilly.

    Come on; Buddhism is more intelligent that some kind of 'do or don't' religion.
    riverflowzombiegirllobsterAllbuddhaBound
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Tosh said:

    I don't think bacteria or viruses are classed as sentient. I also prefer the precepts to include the words 'refrain from'. We should refrain from killing, but that doesn't mean we should never kill. There could be a situation where killing is absolutely the right thing to do; but in general we should refrain from it - not kill willy nilly.

    Come on; Buddhism is more intelligent that some kind of 'do or don't' religion.

    Well, I question where the line of sentience is drawn. I think it has to do with the capability of having emotion. Others see it differently.

  • Sentience for Buddhists is defined generally as any being capable of suffering. This is not exactly the same thing as saying capable of feeling pain, but that's usually what people point to since obviously we can't get inside an animal's head to feel the emotions it's feeling.

    So is a mosquito capable of suffering? Who the heck knows? And there is the problem.
    vinlynriverflow
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    In Mahayana Buddhism, it is to sentient beings that the Bodhisattva vow of compassion is pledged. Furthermore, and particularly in Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism, all beings (including plant life and even inanimate objects or entities considered "spiritual" or "metaphysical" by conventional Western thought) are or may be considered sentient beings.[5][6]
    The Chinese Scholar T'ien-T'ai (538–597) taught that plants, and other insentient objects could attain Buddhahood. This is because of the principle of Ichinen Sanzen (Eng. 3,000 Realms in a Single Thought Moment).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_beings_(Buddhism)

    In crackpot dharma, carrots and magic hats are sentient. Indeed your vegetable soup may have one day been a Buddha before you liquidated its potential . . .
    The important thing is to treat all realms with respect, whilst not abandoning your holy hat, head or common sense.

    May all vegetables and holy hats be at peace.
    Tosh
  • bookwormbookworm U.S.A. Veteran
    Its not its nowhere near as bad, the bad karma you get for killing a bug is like dropping a cube of salt in the ganges river
    Cinorjer
  • misterCopemisterCope PA, USA Veteran
    Sometimes I wonder if trees are perfect Buddhists. They're so serene, and they're so patient. They are unmoved by anything you say to them -- totally equanimous. Maybe they are enlightened. If that were the case, think of all the bad karma you get from killing trees. Yeesh!
    lobster
  • Survival is the name of the game. From bacteria and viruses to humans. If the individual doesn't, at least its progeny does.

    "You" may not have intended to kill the viruses or bacteria, but the immune system does it automatically. Unless you consider the individual cells that kill to be you!

    Your survival is dependent on the deaths of many living things. Think of how many chickens, fishes etc that you will have to consume in your lifetime. That is the nature of being alive.

    This is a game that can never be won.
    MaryAnne
  • Cinorjer said:

    In Buddhism, killing a sentient being is killing a sentient being. Both are considered damaging to your karma and leads to suffering so both should be avoided. However, it is a misreading of the Dharma to think that it says killing a bug and killing a human is equally damaging.

    It is true, though, that Buddhism focuses on individual life and individual conduct instead of ecosystems or societies. It's a reflection of the arahant solitary meditation and enlightenment practice that gave it birth. When practicing Buddhism means withdrawing from society and focusing all your effort on your own advancement, then a wider view doesn't get a lot of attention. That's an inherent flaw in many eyes that must be addressed. So killing disease carrying mosquitos or killing fish to feed starving children is just as wrong as killing the children? To an arahant, yes it was. Starving children or people suffering from malaria were only working out their inherited karma. That's the circle of birth and rebirth, karma, regrettable but hey, it's Samsara and life is full of suffering so all one can do is work to escape it. What's important is his own state of mind.

    But Buddhism is not a dead, static thing. Today we have both the circle of rebirth and the circle of life. The ancients didn't know bugs carried disease, or what caused disease at all except for karma, and they had no idea that an ecosystem depended on death as much as birth. So we have to work on fitting the core beliefs of Buddhism into what we know today. It's not easy. Take our modern "socially engaged Buddhism". Totally foreign to the Buddha, who considered the ills of society to be something one simply had to accept as unavoidable and withdraw from. He never taught we had a duty to change society. He considered killing wrong but didn't tell the King to stop waging war. He taught compassion but didn't do a thing about the starving orphans and widows or preach against slavery in his society. It was all about withdrawing and individual conduct.

    Oooh LOVE this post! 'Socially engaged Buddhism', aye? Sounds like my box of biscuits! Thank you. It is suitably Googled and soon to be explored rather thoroughly! Again, beautiful, inspiring, thought-provoking post. Much appreciated. Two bags of glorious karma in the post, signed, Richard. :)
    riverflow
  • @mindatrisk glad to have helped in any way. Y'all have given me plenty to think about over the past years here.
  • I've had a little something of a bug phobia when I was younger. Over the years I have improved only somewhat. Now I let spiders roam around (I will move them if they get too close to the bed) and in general I try my best to put insects in my apartment outside. I could kill them instead, but why would I want to do that when their are other alternatives? I did have a plague of flies the a couple years ago though that was awful (the whole town was having a problem with them) and I did have to resort to flypaper once it got out of hand.

    But I still had a phobia with wasps, hornets, fire ants-- biting and stinging insects (and cockroaches!). It took a little five-year old girl named Athena (yes, Athena!) to help me overcome my fear --and therefore also my irritation. I met her and her mother at the monastery a few months ago. Athena loved to check out insects of all kinds and was very much at ease with them. But her mother told me that she used to be absolutely petrified by insects. So we checked out insects along the path together and since then I've improved considerably.

    What I used to do though was get so upset by the presence of a flying insect that I would get irritated about it. It reminds me of this haiku by Issa:

    Striking the fly,
    I hit also
    A flowering plant.


    This irritability was a habit ingrained in me long ago, when I was a child. Now I gently brush them away from my head, but I don't swat at or attempt to kill them-- not if I can help it.

    The Mindfulness Trainings in Thich Nhat Hanh's tradition all begin with the exact same phrase: "Aware of the suffering caused by ... " For myself, that lucidity is the key to understanding Buddhist practice. It isn't about "Thou shalt not ... " but about recognizing how I am not separate from my sourroundings-- rather I participate in my surroundings. I can make my surroundings more or less peaceful depending on my own mindfulness of a given situation.

    These precepts cannot be "followed" in any absolute sense-- that's not even the point (again, they are not commandments). The first Mindfulness Training says: "...I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to support any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, or in my way of life..." The point rather is to raise my awareness of it in order to meet suffering with compassion, in order to "cultivate openness, non-discrimination, and non-attachment to views in order to transform violence, fanaticism, and dogmatism in myself and in the world." The greater the awareness, the more non-violence can be cultivated.

    Whether insects are or are not sentient, they still can teach US a thing or two about tolerance, patience, and non-violence. They can help to train us for other, far more difficult creatures, such as human beings. So yes, I do think that killing insects can have a cumulative karmic effect, watering negative seeds within oneself.

    Why would I WANT to kill an insect? I can identify with @zombiegirl 's situation because I had my problem with the flies that got very out of hand. But *IF* I can avoid doing so, I will. I certainly won't go out of my way to kill an insect when there are other alternatives.
    misterCopezombiegirl
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    Cinorjer said:

    Sentience for Buddhists is defined generally as any being capable of suffering. This is not exactly the same thing as saying capable of feeling pain, but that's usually what people point to since obviously we can't get inside an animal's head to feel the emotions it's feeling.

    So is a mosquito capable of suffering? Who the heck knows? And there is the problem.

    But if you just avoid killing mosquitoes, it's no longer a problem. If you just avoid killing them, then it does not actually matter if they are capable of suffering or not.
    pegembara said:

    Think of how many chickens, fishes etc that you will have to consume in your lifetime. That is the nature of being alive.

    This is a game that can never be won.

    0 chickens and 0 fishes! The game can not be won but the game can be played in different ways. Some ways cause more death and suffering and other ways cause less death and suffering. As Buddhists it's quite appropriate to chose they ways that cause the least amount. But of course, you already know that. :)

    riverflow
  • misterCopemisterCope PA, USA Veteran
    riverflow said:



    What I used to do though was get so upset by the presence of a flying insect that I would get irritated about it. It reminds me of this haiku by Issa:

    Striking the fly,
    I hit also
    A flowering plant.



    What a perfect response!
    riverflow
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    seeker242 said:


    pegembara said:

    Think of how many chickens, fishes etc that you will have to consume in your lifetime. That is the nature of being alive.

    This is a game that can never be won.

    0 chickens and 0 fishes! The game can not be won but the game can be played in different ways. Some ways cause more death and suffering and other ways cause less death and suffering. As Buddhists it's quite appropriate to chose they ways that cause the least amount. But of course, you already know that. :)

    I agree with you Seeker. It really bums me out when people put life into such black and white views. It's that sort of opinion that convinces a lot of people not to even try. Like people love to poke at the fact that I am not a very strict vegetarian. For a long time, I tried to acclimate my body to eating meat when it was given in group situations (but alas, infrequent meat messed me up too much so I gave up for digestive reasons). Oftentimes, just mentioning you're a vegetarian causes people to feel some sort of perceived judgement, as if the fact that I don't eat meat means I condemn them for doing so. But my philosophy has always been that if everyone could just do what they felt they could, the world would be a better place. For some people, that's being vegan and for some people that's only eating meat on the weekends. For me, I do eat fish once and a while because it's actually all that I miss from meat eating. *shrugs* Call it what you will.

    I just wish people didn't feel like just because you might not be perfect, doesn't mean you can't try to be better. My first post ever on this site was involving the spiderpocalypse I went through in my apartment a few years ago. A nest had hatched and in a panic, I got the vacuum... You know the rest. But now I try to be better.
    Jeffreyriverflowlobsterseeker242
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    Why would I WANT to kill an insect?
    Killing a bee because it is in a room is wanton. If a child is in the room, it is a bad precedent. If the child has a potentially lethal allergy? Remove the child? Kill the bee, open a window etc? It is a question of priorities and personal integrity.

    The other day a barely visible insect crawled across my screen. Why kill it? If really annoying I can blow it away.

    Will you stop eating vegetable produce because of the numbers of insects killed during tilling and plant growth, were they even if not sprayed, battle to kill the insects that try to eat their development. No?
    Are you sanctioning Murder? ;)

    Existence really does involve dukkha. Get over it . . . :wave:
    bookwormpegembarariverflow
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited October 2013
    Cinorjer said:

    @seeker242 I will never put myself into the position of advocating killing without thought or that all killing of "lesser lifeforms" is OK simply because it's not a human being. But can you see that in a world that includes humans and other life interacting with each other, people simply have to make a choice sometimes? That is living in the "real world" and not the sterile utopia of the temple.

    Yes! Choices have to be made. :) What is important I think is to make the choice that involves the least amount of harm causing possible while at the same time still being reasonable. :) To kill a bug just because one does not like bugs, is pretty selfish. A precepts violation. While killing a bug, like a tapeworm, that is eating out your insides, is a completely different story!

    But sometimes people say "Well, it just the circle of life so it really does not matter if you kill bugs or not". This is a huge mistake and not "right action"!

    The most skillful way to deal, with tapeworms for example, is to not put yourself in a position where you would have to kill them to begin with. Another example would be roaches. The best way to deal with roaches is to keep your home clean so they don't come there to begin with. Of course that is not always possible but it's more possible than people realize sometimes. The best course of action is to not put yourself in a position where you would have to make that choice to begin with, if possible.

    :om:
    riverflowrobot
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    That's a good post @Seeker242.

    When I go on my daily walk, I attempt to avoid stepping on insects. When I had some flies in the house during our unusually wet summer here, I either shooed them outside or ignored them (which wasn't easy). On the other hand, we do have some somewhat dangerous spiders out here, so if they are in the house they get killed. Similar with snakes. If I see them out and about...let them be, unless they are immediately around my house or in my window well...then they are killed. And so, as you say, it comes down to choices.
    riverflow
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    seeker242 said:


    Yes! Choices have to be made. :) What is important I think is to make the choice that involves the least amount of harm causing possible while at the same time still being reasonable. :) To kill a bug just because one does not like bugs, is pretty selfish. A precepts violation. While killing a bug, like a tapeworm, that is eating out your insides, is a completely different story!

    I agree. My opinion is that Buddhist morality isn't black and white. Skillful actions are better than unskillful ones, and harming living beings goes against the first precept. But even the Buddha made distinctions between killing a human being and stepping on an ant. It's true that killing is considered an unskillful action, and it's always better to try and avoid harming other living beings when possible; but that doesn't mean we're not going to be put into a situation where we're going to have to make tough decisions. I definitely think part of right action is being proactive and preventing situations where we might have to harm something from arising, as well as being inventive in situations when they do. The most important aspect of any decision, however, is the intention behind it. If our intention is to protect ourselves from harm and disease, that's a lot different than killing out of anger or for fun.
    riverflow
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    caz said:

    When a human life is obviously worth much more than an insects?

    Surely if Buddhism emphasizes how precious human lives are an how common animal loves are taking away a being's human life is taking away a lot more from a being than taking away a being's animal life?

    These beings have been cycling Samsara since beginingless time in the Lamrim we are taught to regard every single sentient being as being very dear to us like our kind mother regardless of what form they come in.


    So I assume you would never take an antibiotic or disinfectant to save your own life?

    Viruses and Bacteria are not sentient. :)
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    caz said:

    vinlyn said:

    caz said:

    When a human life is obviously worth much more than an insects?

    Surely if Buddhism emphasizes how precious human lives are an how common animal loves are taking away a being's human life is taking away a lot more from a being than taking away a being's animal life?

    These beings have been cycling Samsara since beginingless time in the Lamrim we are taught to regard every single sentient being as being very dear to us like our kind mother regardless of what form they come in.


    So I assume you would never take an antibiotic or disinfectant to save your own life?

    Viruses and Bacteria are not sentient. :)
    1. Not all people even use the condition of sentience in their thinking...many just say all living things.

    2. As I posted earlier in this same thread, it depends on how one views sentience...where is the line drawn.

    riverflow
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    caz said:

    When a human life is obviously worth much more than an insects?

    Surely if Buddhism emphasizes how precious human lives are an how common animal loves are taking away a being's human life is taking away a lot more from a being than taking away a being's animal life?

    These beings have been cycling Samsara since beginingless time in the Lamrim we are taught to regard every single sentient being as being very dear to us like our kind mother regardless of what form they come in.


    But it also teaches us that a human life more precious than an animal life. So surely taking away the life of the animal is not as bad as taking the life of a human because you are taking away something of higher value from the human?
    vinlyn
  • I've never heard any official statement that humans and bugs are equally valuable.

    But I think I know where you're coming from: some people make a huge deal out of not killing critters, even accidentally. And it's quite understanable that you are irked by that attitude.

    I don't subscribe to it either. Sure, don't go out of your way to wack bugs and rodents just because you feel like it-- that's just perverse, Buddhism or not. Even my grandpa, who knew nothing whatsoever about Buddhism scolded me when, as a child, I'd smash ants out of boredom. But if the creature is a pest, a parasite or is stepped on unwittingly , I do not see what the big deal is.

    I suspect that this "bugmania" is, in many cases, a distraction, a kind of an excuse to not address some *real* isues in one's life and environment. Don't go out of your way to not hurt bugs. But do go out of your way to help people. That is much, much harder and if you really commit to it, that'll take up all your energy and then some.

    riverflow
  • When a human life is obviously worth much more than an insects?

    Surely if Buddhism emphasizes how precious human lives are an how common animal loves are taking away a being's human life is taking away a lot more from a being than taking away a being's animal life?

    Every life is valuable if you consider they all have their role in the food web. But in a man-made environment, we worry more about butter and bread . Don't worry so much about the insect or the fly.
Sign In or Register to comment.