Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Killed a fly today - though for a reason- feeling bad
As far as I can see, the past few decades have brought about a real shift in our understanding of our place in the animal kingdom. It probably began with the "Save The Whales" campaign (1951) and has been emphasised by concepts such as Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis and the Deep Ecology movement. We no longer see ourselves as 'owners' but, more and more, as 'stewards'.
I see humanity as a mindless bacterialistic entity that slowly destroys everything.
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
I actually don't consider that as negative- it just is, just as we are living in a material world full of suffering. Luckily for me I don't suffer much
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
edited August 2009
Luck, my dear Yuri, has nothing to do with it.
I would think.....;)
Let me tell you something. This case is with spiders,
I used to be a good guy, I used to move spiders outside even if it took 30 minutes, I was afraid of them and afraid of hurting them. There were very many- i live in the basement of a house etc, there would be at least 3 or 4 on the wall if I inspected it...at any given time,
then one day, like today , I got super pissed, i was in a really bad mood, and I saw one of these spiders, i really killed the fuckin shit out of him, I squashed him with pure rage and I liked it. I liked the fact that i wasn't putting up with their shit, anymore, not wasting time moving them and letting them make me afraid,
So then another spider,- and I murdered that one too, I found a flat swiffer like broom and made it my new weapon, only for killing spiders, it worked great, I started a count and posted it online for all to see, i got to about 13- or 14 spiders, but then i realized that everytime i saw a spider i got excited, not afraid, because I wanted to kill them.
so my question to you is, do you really feel bad? or did that fly get in ur face and u fuckin killed the mother fucker, its not ur fault he's too stupid to risk his life , RIGHT?
Perhapes you will move on to small animals next ? the question is though when to stop. :rolleyes:
Flies and mosquitoes are fair game to me. They die.
I don't consider them to be sentient beings, but harbingers of disease and filth.
If they're not sentient beings, no harm done.
If they are, I consider any future life has to be better than the one they're in, anyway.
And you have not thought of your personal karma if they are sentient beings your own kind mothers of previous lives ?
Just put your self in that position imagine some old bitter women charging at you with a swatter because she cannot control her own childish mind.
Do not kill living beings, there is no difference between us and them other then our next breathe as it may be our last.
And you have not thought of your personal karma if they are sentient beings your own kind mothers of previous lives ?
Just put your self in that position imagine some old bitter women charging at you with a swatter because she cannot control her own childish mind.
Do not kill living beings, there is no difference between us and them other then our next breathe as it may be our last.
That is of course... one viewpoint.
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
edited August 2009
If someone's Karma has meant that they were re-born in that realm, as a fly or mosquito, being that therefore they were reborn in that way as a result of their karma - it also occurs to me that perhaps their karma was not as good as it might have been.
It sounds then, as if they must have been really odious people, and if they were my mother, beating me and chasing me out of the house because I was an unsavoury and inconvenient imposition about them - then maybe they are reaping the results of their kamma. Exactlty as the Buddha did with his bad back, when in a previous life, he broke another's man's back, in a wrestling contest.
as I said. killing them is an absolute last resort.
More often than not, I chase them out of the house, whenever I can.
Regardless of the viewpoint what right do we have to take anothers life even if it is as insignificant as a fly or other insect that we dont like ? Regardless of peoples feelings the basis of teaching is overcoming delusion and killing increases and hardens our delusions....we will suffer far greater if we indulge these childish states of mind, even if you are not of a capacity to care for others then think of your self the more ignorant actions you perform the more ignorant you become and the more ignorant you are the more you will suffer for your transgressions.
Even swatting a mosquito out of anger can lead to rebirth in the deepest hell.
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
edited August 2009
I'm not swatting it out of anger.
I'm swatting it to stop it sucking my blood to feed its young and to stop more potentially-disease-carrying larvae from hatching out.
I never feel anger if I swat.
And as I said - it's a last resort.
And more healthy than slathering myself with insecticidal chemicals that stink like billy-oh, and contain goodness-knows-what harmful substances that might kill me instead...
I hardly ever vote on any threads. I voted as low a mark as I could on this one just a minute ago and it didn't even make a dent in bringing the score down.
There's a lot of members here who are extremely scrupulous. Weird, but scrupulous!
A fly is an uninvited pest. Better to kill a fly than to say an unkind word to a human pest. I'm not saying I never do, but I'm no saint. As far as I'm concerned, the coming-into-being of a peaceful fly-free state is sometimes just what is necessary.
I cannot abide flies, chiefly because of their proclivity for contact with feces. I just see too much of it in my work.
From every action will come an effect i just pray that you reconsider killing sentient beings, before you end up feeling the effects of your own ignorant actions.
today i came across a somewhat different dilema- a fly was near death and on the floow, bujzzing around- I think it was there since yesterday- I remembered the story about how a hunter who keeps the animals alive in traps gets way worse karma, so after some contemplation I decided to bring it out of it's misery, at first I tried killing it with bug spray but that didn't work so I ended up having to squash it- I usually just kill mosquitoes and haven't killed a fly in many years so it was quite gruesome. The whole experience didn't feel like it was the right thing to do- next time I think I'll just throw it out of the window
Even swatting a mosquito out of anger can lead to rebirth in the deepest hell.
I think that's a bit simplified really. If you kill a mosquito and then feel regret, according to what I have read (mainly Lama Surya Das and Thich Nhat Hanh) you are not implanting permanent negative seeds of karma. And there must be some truth to that, otherwise how would Angulima (hope I spelt that right) attain enlightenment in one lifetime when he was planning to make The Buddha the 1000th person he killed? (Angulima even killed his own mother it is said)
I killed a fly today - though for a reason feeling bad
is there anything i should do
still feeling bad...
you can meditate on the four opponent powers and purify.
The Four Opponent Powers:
1. Regret (Regret is not guilt)
2. Be open about what you have done and acknowledge it.
3. Determination not to repeat the action
4. Remedial Actions like the recitation of Vajrasattva's, Avalokiteshvara, or Tara's mantra.
And there must be some truth to that, otherwise how would Angulima (hope I spelt that right) attain enlightenment in one lifetime when he was planning to make The Buddha the 1000th person he killed? (Angulima even killed his own mother it is said)
Actually, Angulimala didn't kill his mother. The story goes that Angulimala was on his way to kill his mother — making her his 1,000th victim — when he ran into the Buddha and tried to kill him instead. But the Buddha was able to convert Angulimala before he could kill anyone else (MN 86).
The story of Angulimala is one of my favorites because it shows the power of redemption, that we can "be good again", as Rahim Khan said to Amir in The Kite Runner. Although it should be remembered that even though Angulimala attained realization under the tutelage of the Buddha, he died a violent death as a result of the numerous murders he committed.
Actually, Angulimala didn't kill his mother. The story goes that Angulimala was on his way to kill his mother — making her his 1,000th victim — when he ran into the Buddha and tried to kill him instead. But the Buddha was able to convert Angulimala before he could kill anyone else (MN 86).
Aaaah you're right, I misread the story. Thanks for the correction
The story of Angulimala is one of my favorites because it shows the power of redemption, that we can "be good again", as Rahim Khan said to Amir in The Kite Runner. Although it should be remembered that even though Angulimala attained realization under the tutelage of the Buddha, he died a violent death as a result of the numerous murders he committed.
Palzang
I did not realise that Angulimala died violently, although to be honest, it makes sense given he had killed 999 people without care. But it DOES make one contemplate karma on a deeper level - well for me anyway
I did not realise that Angulimala died violently, although to be honest, it makes sense given he had killed 999 people without care. But it DOES make one contemplate karma on a deeper level - well for me anyway
Yes, I think it's one of the more vivid illustrations of kamma (i.e., actions have consequences) found in the Pali Canon.
then one day, like today , I got super pissed, i was in a really bad mood, and I saw one of these spiders, i really killed the fuckin shit out of him, I squashed him with pure rage and I liked it. I liked the fact that i wasn't putting up with their shit, anymore, not wasting time moving them and letting them make me afraid,
So then another spider,- and I murdered that one too, I found a flat swiffer like broom and made it my new weapon, only for killing spiders, it worked great, I started a count and posted it online for all to see, i got to about 13- or 14 spiders, but then i realized that everytime i saw a spider i got excited, not afraid, because I wanted to kill them.
so my question to you is, do you really feel bad? or did that fly get in ur face and u fuckin killed the mother fucker, its not ur fault he's too stupid to risk his life , RIGHT?
You ok there The found ? I can understand being irritated, but don't you feel ur getting carried away a little? Not exactly a Buddhist way of talking ...
Flies and mosquitoes are fair game to me. They die.
I don't consider them to be sentient beings, but harbingers of disease and filth.
If they're not sentient beings, no harm done.
If they are, I consider any future life has to be better than the one they're in, anyway.
weird.
since flies and mosquito's are not sentient beings and they are harbingers of disease and filth i guess mice, pigs, dogs, chickens, pigeons etc. are all harbingers of filth and disease and its ok for us to dispatch them with the thought, "Oh well, if they are really sentient beings the next go round will be better"?
I dont think so, if you light a match in front of a crawling fly it will run away from it. It senses the heat of fire and the destruction that it can bring and therefore tries to distance itself from the danger.
Killing any living being reinforces a callous attitude. By sparing and even protecting creatures we are able to train in kindness and compassion, killing them trains us in cruelty.
If they are, I consider any future life has to be better than the one they're in, anyway.
I must say, I pray no one feels such noble "compassion" for you someday. :-/
"First they came for the flies, but I did not speak out--because I was not a fly." :eek:
But sentient?
Sorry.
I don't buy it.
What does sentient mean to you?
If someone's Karma has meant that they were re-born in that realm, as a fly or mosquito, being that therefore they were reborn in that way as a result of their karma - it also occurs to me that perhaps their karma was not as good as it might have been.
It sounds then, as if they must have been really odious people, and if they were my mother, beating me and chasing me out of the house because I was an unsavoury and inconvenient imposition about them - then maybe they are reaping the results of their kamma.
This is just manipulating the dhamma to suit yourself. Kamma is not punishment, it's not "negative." It just is. You see the scenario you just described as negative and cause for such a rebirth, but then you justify your own identical actions as if you yourself are kamma and will not reap your own for your actions. Will you be reborn as a fly in your next life, then? If someone goes psycho and shoots a random person in the head out of rage, do we just say "oh well, the victim must've deserved it due to their negative kamma"...? The kamma is yours and it's a terrible misunderstanding of the Buddha's teachings to try to justify one's own unskillful actions by saying "well, it was the other person's/thing's negative kamma, I just happened to be the one to dish it out."
Exactlty as the Buddha did with his bad back, when in a previous life, he broke another's man's back, in a wrestling contest.
For my part, I frequently kill home-invading insects that I feel threaten or annoy me
Killing when neccessary if something truly threatens you is one thing. Out of annoyance is another. Annoyance is our own problem. Or did you kill your mother-in-law, too?
I've noticed that most of the attention on this thread is about killing, whether it is OK to kill some sentient beings or whether they're really sentient or whatever. How about we flip the whole thing over and read this precept as not anti-killing but rather pro-life? What about thinking about it as promoting life rather than vowing to just not take it? Like for instance, feeding birds in the winter rather than just taking a hands-off approach and not deliberately killing them. Do you see a difference there? Maybe if it we looked at the problem that way it would become a bit clearer, respecting life wherever we find it and doing our best to both preserve and promote it.
If I intentionally kill a mosquito with no ill-will or malice, where is the cause for suffering? Certainly the mosquito doesn't suffer, for he is dead. If I act with no self-concept and no clinging or craving, neither do I suffer. We can't say that the mosquito wants to live, for there is no indication that insects have any capacity for happiness, suffering, desire, etc whatsoever.
Many plants have sophisticated sensing, survival, respiratory, and defensive systems. What then is the metric that finds no fault with killing plants, but proscribes against killing insects?
Certainly the mosquito doesn't suffer, for he is dead. If I act with no self-concept and no clinging or craving, neither do I suffer. We can't say that the mosquito wants to live, for there is no indication that insects have any capacity for happiness, suffering, desire, etc whatsoever.
First regarding the mosquito being dead and therefore does not suffer.
If we assert death is termination that is followed by nothingness we have fallen into the extreme of nihilism. Dead beings arent finished, the potential for further suffering is very much present.
Second, its impossible to kill another living being without self-concept, craving, aversion, clinging etc. unless one is a highly realized being. Think about it, the impulse to kill a mosquito that is about to bite you is based entirely on self preservation, the same thing that drives the mosquito to bite.
Third, we can most certainly say that a mosquito "wants to live" it may not be cognizant of its desire for self preservation but if they did not "want to live" they wouldnt feed in the first place and we would never encounter them nor would they reproduce etc.
Any being which reacts to a stimulus and seeks its own preservation is one I regard as 'sentient'. It may be a stretch to say that a mosquito is 'self aware' but it is a being which is capable of complex decision-making in order to arrive at your flesh, so is certainly sentient.
As a weird aside, I usually deal with a wasp in my house by wafting it towards an open door or window. Without exception, they react by heading outside even if the exit is many feet away.
The status of plants which react to touch in order to feed (venus fly-trap) or to protect themselves (mimosa), is one I haven't fully decided upon, so I try not to harm them. As the stimulus-reaction is autonomous, I tend to favour regarding them as non-sentient.
Certainly the mosquito doesn't suffer, for he is dead.
Are you willing to shoot yourself in the head to prove your point?
If I intentionally kill a mosquito with no ill-will or malice, where is the cause for suffering? If I act with no self-concept and no clinging or craving, neither do I suffer.
What is the scenario in which there is no ill-will or malice? Because it sounds like you're applying it to killing of insects in any scenario. But maybe you're thinking of something specific. If not, does the same apply to killing people?
We can't say that the mosquito wants to live, for there is no indication that insects have any capacity for happiness, suffering, desire, etc whatsoever.
There are people who do not have the capacity for such things either; again, does this apply to people then as well? Likewise there are people who cannot feel physical pain for various reasons; can we kill these people when they annoy us, too, then? Are their lives worth nothing? Do insects feel pain?
Many plants have sophisticated sensing, survival, respiratory, and defensive systems. What then is the metric that finds no fault with killing plants, but proscribes against killing insects?
Needlessly destroying plants is just as ignorant as killing insects out of annoyance or whatever. Killing something, anything, for survival and safety is another story.
First regarding the mosquito being dead and therefore does not suffer.
If we assert death is termination that is followed by nothingness we have fallen into the extreme of nihilism. Dead beings arent finished, the potential for further suffering is very much present.
Mental formations or sensory contact do not take place in a body that is deceased, thus suffering in this body cannot take place.
Second, its impossible to kill another living being without self-concept, craving, aversion, clinging etc. unless one is a highly realized being. Think about it, the impulse to kill a mosquito that is about to bite you is based entirely on self preservation, the same thing that drives the mosquito to bite.
I agree with you in that particular example, but I believe there are other cases where this is not true. What about the unattached gardener? Does he necessarily have a self-concept while spraying pesticide in his garden?
Third, we can most certainly say that a mosquito "wants to live" it may not be cognizant of its desire for self preservation but if they did not "want to live" they wouldnt feed in the first place and we would never encounter them nor would they reproduce etc.
This definition of "wants to live" would encompass all plants as well.
Any being which reacts to a stimulus and seeks its own preservation is one I regard as 'sentient'. It may be a stretch to say that a mosquito is 'self aware' but it is a being which is capable of complex decision-making in order to arrive at your flesh, so is certainly sentient.
I, as well as many scientists, would dispute that there is any complex decision-making involved at all when an insect is attracted to your flesh.
The status of plants which react to touch in order to feed (venus fly-trap) or to protect themselves (mimosa), is one I haven't fully decided upon, so I try not to harm them. As the stimulus-reaction is autonomous, I tend to favour regarding them as non-sentient.
This isn't just a couple plants I'm talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=plants&st=cse. The more we investigate the plant world, the more it surprises us with the variation in behavior/responses we observe. Many are no more advanced than the stimulus-response that insects display.
Are you willing to shoot yourself in the head to prove your point?
Is this the only way we have of investigating death?
What is the scenario in which there is no ill-will or malice? Because it sounds like you're applying it to killing of insects in any scenario. But maybe you're thinking of something specific. If not, does the same apply to killing people?
No, but my point is that wherever you draw the line, you are making an arbitrary decision. While most agree that killing humans is off-limits, and killing plants is ok, there is no clear line we can point to.
There are people who do not have the capacity for such things either; again, does this apply to people then as well? Likewise there are people who cannot feel physical pain for various reasons; can we kill these people when they annoy us, too, then? Are their lives worth nothing? Do insects feel pain?
The consequences of killing another human being are much more far-reaching and devastating than killing an insect, and it is much more likely to cause suffering. The absolute proscription "don't kill living things" is an overly-simplified statement that doesn't reflect the true depth of existence.
That link appears to back up what I'm saying-that if insects have any pain response, it is nothing at all like what it is to feel pain as a human being. To consider what insects feel as pain would necessarily include the response of plants as well (or really any self-correcting system).
Are you suggesting mind-body duality then? We know that mental activity ceases when someone dies.
So then any absolute proscription that uses that as a basis is either unfounded or impossible to follow.
This was directed at Yeshe.
I guess my main point is that one's state of mind is more important when taking action then rigidly following some absolute set of proscriptions.
No I am not suggestion a duality, I am suggesting that the end of life is not "the end".
Just because plants by their nature "want to live" too, doesnt give us the right to kill animals. We shouldnt kill plants either unless there is need.
Of course plants and animals will die through our actions and our intentions do count but we should be mindful and do as little harm as possible.
Just let it go . It has already happened, and worrying about it now is about as effective as solving an algebra equation by chewing bubblegum. The only thing that comes out of dwelling on it now is your own anxiety/suffering.
I doubt the fly wants you berate yourself and suffer over this.
Is this the only way we have of inestigating death?
what does this have to do with anything? My point is that saying killing insects is fine because something dead doesn't suffer (although something in the rocess of dying surely does) is only fair if you're willing to apply the same logic to yourself and others. Are you willing to shoot yourself then or would you rather live?
There are also many people who murder without suffering themselves.... Does that make it ok? "Your honour, the victim is dead and cannot suffer and I am content with my choice to kill him out of annoyance and am not suffering." "Well then, you may walk free."
Even swatting a mosquito out of anger can lead to rebirth in the deepest hell.
I'm not a member two days yet and I find out I may be going to hell. Oh, no!
Hello everyone! Very interesting conversation. I am not a Buddhist but I am drawn to it and have started a meditation practice recently. I like this forum. Real people who don't pretend to be perfect or have all the answers to life. Perfect people make me uncomfortable.
I live in an apartment and I am so grateful to see the exterminator when he shows up. I don't enjoy sharing my living space with roaches.
what does this have to do with anything? My point is that saying killing insects is fine because something dead doesn't suffer (although something in the rocess of dying surely does) is only fair if you're willing to apply the same logic to yourself and others. Are you willing to shoot yourself then or would you rather live?
There are also many people who murder without suffering themselves.... Does that make it ok? "Your honour, the victim is dead and cannot suffer and I am content with my choice to kill him out of annoyance and am not suffering." "Well then, you may walk free."
I'm not arguing that we should kill insects just for the hell of it, just that it isn't necessarily inherently wrong. In any case, I'm not sure what killing myself would prove. I couldn't kill myself without causing more suffering than if I were to continue to live, and this is true for most cases involving humans (though not all). If by my death suffering was reduced, then perhaps I would shoot myself.
If someone truly has good reason to believe that killing someone will reduce suffering over all other alternatives, I can't find fault with that. But you used the word "murder" which indicates that this is not the case, therefore there will necessarily be suffering.
I'm not a member two days yet and I find out I may be going to hell. Oh, no!
Yeah well welcome to Christianity. You can tell that person they're damned to hell too; just say: "attempting to tell someone the karmic consequences of their actions without having attained arahantship will lead to rebirth in the lowest realms of hell." Let's all damn each other to hell.
If I intentionally kill a mosquito with no ill-will or malice, where is the cause for suffering?
The question is whether you can intentionally kill a mosquito with no ill-will. The Abhidhammattha-Sangaha, for example, states that:
According to Abhidhamma killing is invariably done with ill-will or aversion. Prompted by whatever motive, one, as a rule, kills with a thought of ill-will. Where there is ill-will (patigha) there is displeasure (domanassa). Where there is displeasure there is ill-will in a subtle or gross way.
As Nina Van Gorkom elaborates, from the Abhidhammic point of view killing is one of "three akusala kamma-pathas [unskillful course of action] accomplished through the body," and is "done with dosa-mula-citta [consciousness rooted in ill-will]" (Different Degrees of Lobha).
I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but it's something to think about. I mean, if you think about it, you're more likely to be killing a mosquito out of irritation (which is a type of ill-will) than loving-kindness.
Here's a fun exercise for anyone not already doing it:
When you find yourself in the position of wanting to kill an insect for whatever reason, say it's annoying you or it's grossing you out or it's just a convenience thing, stop yourself in your tracks and think, "This little being just wants to live. It is no threat to me at all. In fact, since I'm probably a few thousand times bigger than it is, I'm the threat. I'm the monster. It has as much right to be here as I do." Then leave it alone or move it gently outside.
Do this for about two weeks and then take stock of your mind. How has it changed? Is the change a good thing?
When I did this it blew my mind. Really. Well...not literally...but you know what I mean. It's an amazing, really surprising exercise. I highly recommend it.
Here's a fun exercise for anyone not already doing it:
When you find yourself in the position of wanting to kill an insect for whatever reason, say it's annoying you or it's grossing you out or it's just a convenience thing, stop yourself in your tracks and think, "This little being just wants to live. It is no threat to me at all. In fact, since I'm probably a few thousand times bigger than it is, I'm the threat. I'm the monster. It has as much right to be here as I do." Then leave it alone or move it gently outside.
Do this for about two weeks and then take stock of your mind. How has it changed? Is the change a good thing?
When I did this it blew my mind. Really. Well...not literally...but you know what I mean. It's an amazing, really surprising exercise. I highly recommend it.
Great advice, Brigid. I started doing the same thing a few years ago myself and I've really noticed a difference. Personally, I've found this practice to be a lot of help in developing compassion and loving-kindness.
Yup. It felt silly at first but the more I persisted the clearer it became that what I was doing was actually having an important and profound effect on my thinking and perceptions. Imagine that! A funny, silly, little exercise having the power to transform.
I don't think bugs feel pain, but they are certainly sentient. I still think most people don't give enough consideration to them, though. I used to kill ants all the time, now I try to avoid that and I use jars to capture spiders.
The question is whether you can intentionally kill a mosquito with no ill-will. The Abhidhammattha-Sangaha, for example, states that:
According to Abhidhamma killing is invariably done with ill-will or aversion. Prompted by whatever motive, one, as a rule, kills with a thought of ill-will. Where there is ill-will (patigha) there is displeasure (domanassa). Where there is displeasure there is ill-will in a subtle or gross way.
As Nina Van Gorkom elaborates, from the Abhidhammic point of view killing is one of "three akusala kamma-pathas [unskillful course of action] accomplished through the body," and is "done with dosa-mula-citta [consciousness rooted in ill-will]" (Different Degrees of Lobha).
I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but it's something to think about. I mean, if you think about it, you're more likely to be killing a mosquito out of irritation (which is a type of ill-will) than loving-kindness.
Thanks for adding this point of view. This part (whether something can actually be killed without ill-will or self-view) is the part I'm not really sure about. It seems like it would hypothetically be possible, but I don't know if that is the case in practice.
I don't think bugs feel pain, but they are certainly sentient. I still think most people don't give enough consideration to them, though. I used to kill ants all the time, now I try to avoid that and I use jars to capture spiders.
What definition of sentience are you using here? There are some definitions of sentience which insects certainly do not satisfy.
For the purposes of Buddhist practice, calling a being "sentient" presumably means that it is holding a self-concept which it is struggling to preserve. Are the 10<sup>5</sup> neurons in a fly brain capable of representing a self-concept? No one really knows, yet, but it seems unlikely to me.
For the purposes of Buddhist practice, calling a being "sentient" presumably means that it is holding a self-concept which it is struggling to preserve. Are the 10<sup>5</sup> neurons in a fly brain capable of representing a self-concept? No one really knows, yet, but it seems unlikely to me.
The brain isnt considered the mind, besides who'd have thought there would be tremendous power unleashed by splitting an atom ?
For the purposes of Buddhist practice, calling a being "sentient" presumably means that it is holding a self-concept which it is struggling to preserve. Are the 10<sup>5</sup> neurons in a fly brain capable of representing a self-concept? No one really knows, yet, but it seems unlikely to me.
I agree with you that a sentient being is a being that "perceives" anything. We know that flies perceive the aggression you show when you swat at it, because it flies away. Does it perceive it the same way we do? Probably not, maybe the fly reacts because of an instinct. Whose to say that everything we do and think isn't the result of instinct?
Do you consider dogs sentient beings? I find that we can communicate with dogs on an emotional level; we pat it's head and it's tail wags expressing it's happiness. We can't exactly communicate the same way intellectually; we can't teach a dog calculus, but we know it perceives happiness.
Beings can be at many different levels of understanding/perception, however, they are only capable of understanding the level that they are at in the here and now.They may not always be this way. Maybe the dog will evolve, get smarter and smarter, and eventually learn calculus. It may take unfathomable amounts of lives to do so, but it might. (Yay for math dogs!!):p
We can never be sure though, can we? Like your post alludes to, we are confined to our own experiences. Maybe the person next to you perceives reality completely different than us, but we'll never know...
When I was little, I used to fantasize about how maybe everyone saw the world in different colors, and only believed everyone saw the way they did because they had been taught to assign "this" name to "this" color. I thought maybe people around me were seeing the world in the view of those 3D glasses (the red and blue ones) and I still haven't figured out if they do or not...
The brain isnt considered the mind, besides who'd have thought there would be tremendous power unleashed by splitting an atom ?
That's just an argument from ignorance. We're all taking the best crack at the issue we can, based on what we know. There's no ruling out that some mystical component of a fly makes killing it unethical, but it seems pretty unlikely to me.
Comments
I see humanity as a mindless bacterialistic entity that slowly destroys everything.
I actually don't consider that as negative- it just is, just as we are living in a material world full of suffering. Luckily for me I don't suffer much
I would think.....;)
More like a deadly virus, I think...
Palzang
Perhapes you will move on to small animals next ? the question is though when to stop. :rolleyes:
And you have not thought of your personal karma if they are sentient beings your own kind mothers of previous lives ?
Just put your self in that position imagine some old bitter women charging at you with a swatter because she cannot control her own childish mind.
Do not kill living beings, there is no difference between us and them other then our next breathe as it may be our last.
That is of course... one viewpoint.
It sounds then, as if they must have been really odious people, and if they were my mother, beating me and chasing me out of the house because I was an unsavoury and inconvenient imposition about them - then maybe they are reaping the results of their kamma. Exactlty as the Buddha did with his bad back, when in a previous life, he broke another's man's back, in a wrestling contest.
as I said. killing them is an absolute last resort.
More often than not, I chase them out of the house, whenever I can.
Regardless of the viewpoint what right do we have to take anothers life even if it is as insignificant as a fly or other insect that we dont like ? Regardless of peoples feelings the basis of teaching is overcoming delusion and killing increases and hardens our delusions....we will suffer far greater if we indulge these childish states of mind, even if you are not of a capacity to care for others then think of your self the more ignorant actions you perform the more ignorant you become and the more ignorant you are the more you will suffer for your transgressions.
Even swatting a mosquito out of anger can lead to rebirth in the deepest hell.
I'm swatting it to stop it sucking my blood to feed its young and to stop more potentially-disease-carrying larvae from hatching out.
I never feel anger if I swat.
And as I said - it's a last resort.
And more healthy than slathering myself with insecticidal chemicals that stink like billy-oh, and contain goodness-knows-what harmful substances that might kill me instead...
I also have a mosquito net.....;)
There's a lot of members here who are extremely scrupulous. Weird, but scrupulous!
A fly is an uninvited pest. Better to kill a fly than to say an unkind word to a human pest. I'm not saying I never do, but I'm no saint. As far as I'm concerned, the coming-into-being of a peaceful fly-free state is sometimes just what is necessary.
I cannot abide flies, chiefly because of their proclivity for contact with feces. I just see too much of it in my work.
No fondness for flies and unmoved here.
I think that's a bit simplified really. If you kill a mosquito and then feel regret, according to what I have read (mainly Lama Surya Das and Thich Nhat Hanh) you are not implanting permanent negative seeds of karma. And there must be some truth to that, otherwise how would Angulima (hope I spelt that right) attain enlightenment in one lifetime when he was planning to make The Buddha the 1000th person he killed? (Angulima even killed his own mother it is said)
Respectfully,
Raven
The Four Opponent Powers:
1. Regret (Regret is not guilt)
2. Be open about what you have done and acknowledge it.
3. Determination not to repeat the action
4. Remedial Actions like the recitation of Vajrasattva's, Avalokiteshvara, or Tara's mantra.
Actually, Angulimala didn't kill his mother. The story goes that Angulimala was on his way to kill his mother — making her his 1,000th victim — when he ran into the Buddha and tried to kill him instead. But the Buddha was able to convert Angulimala before he could kill anyone else (MN 86).
Palzang
Aaaah you're right, I misread the story. Thanks for the correction
- Raven
I did not realise that Angulimala died violently, although to be honest, it makes sense given he had killed 999 people without care. But it DOES make one contemplate karma on a deeper level - well for me anyway
Thanks for sharing this.
- Raven
No problem. It happens to the best of us.
Yes, I think it's one of the more vivid illustrations of kamma (i.e., actions have consequences) found in the Pali Canon.
weird.
since flies and mosquito's are not sentient beings and they are harbingers of disease and filth i guess mice, pigs, dogs, chickens, pigeons etc. are all harbingers of filth and disease and its ok for us to dispatch them with the thought, "Oh well, if they are really sentient beings the next go round will be better"?
I dont think so, if you light a match in front of a crawling fly it will run away from it. It senses the heat of fire and the destruction that it can bring and therefore tries to distance itself from the danger.
Killing any living being reinforces a callous attitude. By sparing and even protecting creatures we are able to train in kindness and compassion, killing them trains us in cruelty.
I must say, I pray no one feels such noble "compassion" for you someday. :-/
"First they came for the flies, but I did not speak out--because I was not a fly." :eek:
What does sentient mean to you?
This is just manipulating the dhamma to suit yourself. Kamma is not punishment, it's not "negative." It just is. You see the scenario you just described as negative and cause for such a rebirth, but then you justify your own identical actions as if you yourself are kamma and will not reap your own for your actions. Will you be reborn as a fly in your next life, then? If someone goes psycho and shoots a random person in the head out of rage, do we just say "oh well, the victim must've deserved it due to their negative kamma"...? The kamma is yours and it's a terrible misunderstanding of the Buddha's teachings to try to justify one's own unskillful actions by saying "well, it was the other person's/thing's negative kamma, I just happened to be the one to dish it out."
Killing when neccessary if something truly threatens you is one thing. Out of annoyance is another. Annoyance is our own problem. Or did you kill your mother-in-law, too?
:rockon:
Many plants have sophisticated sensing, survival, respiratory, and defensive systems. What then is the metric that finds no fault with killing plants, but proscribes against killing insects?
First regarding the mosquito being dead and therefore does not suffer.
If we assert death is termination that is followed by nothingness we have fallen into the extreme of nihilism. Dead beings arent finished, the potential for further suffering is very much present.
Second, its impossible to kill another living being without self-concept, craving, aversion, clinging etc. unless one is a highly realized being. Think about it, the impulse to kill a mosquito that is about to bite you is based entirely on self preservation, the same thing that drives the mosquito to bite.
Third, we can most certainly say that a mosquito "wants to live" it may not be cognizant of its desire for self preservation but if they did not "want to live" they wouldnt feed in the first place and we would never encounter them nor would they reproduce etc.
As a weird aside, I usually deal with a wasp in my house by wafting it towards an open door or window. Without exception, they react by heading outside even if the exit is many feet away.
The status of plants which react to touch in order to feed (venus fly-trap) or to protect themselves (mimosa), is one I haven't fully decided upon, so I try not to harm them. As the stimulus-reaction is autonomous, I tend to favour regarding them as non-sentient.
Are you willing to shoot yourself in the head to prove your point?
What is the scenario in which there is no ill-will or malice? Because it sounds like you're applying it to killing of insects in any scenario. But maybe you're thinking of something specific. If not, does the same apply to killing people?
There are people who do not have the capacity for such things either; again, does this apply to people then as well? Likewise there are people who cannot feel physical pain for various reasons; can we kill these people when they annoy us, too, then? Are their lives worth nothing? Do insects feel pain?
Needlessly destroying plants is just as ignorant as killing insects out of annoyance or whatever. Killing something, anything, for survival and safety is another story.
Mental formations or sensory contact do not take place in a body that is deceased, thus suffering in this body cannot take place.
I agree with you in that particular example, but I believe there are other cases where this is not true. What about the unattached gardener? Does he necessarily have a self-concept while spraying pesticide in his garden?
This definition of "wants to live" would encompass all plants as well.
I, as well as many scientists, would dispute that there is any complex decision-making involved at all when an insect is attracted to your flesh.
This isn't just a couple plants I'm talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=plants&st=cse. The more we investigate the plant world, the more it surprises us with the variation in behavior/responses we observe. Many are no more advanced than the stimulus-response that insects display.
Is this the only way we have of investigating death?
No, but my point is that wherever you draw the line, you are making an arbitrary decision. While most agree that killing humans is off-limits, and killing plants is ok, there is no clear line we can point to.
The consequences of killing another human being are much more far-reaching and devastating than killing an insect, and it is much more likely to cause suffering. The absolute proscription "don't kill living things" is an overly-simplified statement that doesn't reflect the true depth of existence.
That link appears to back up what I'm saying-that if insects have any pain response, it is nothing at all like what it is to feel pain as a human being. To consider what insects feel as pain would necessarily include the response of plants as well (or really any self-correcting system).
I didnt say anything about the body.
" What about the unattached gardener? Does he necessarily have a self-concept while spraying pesticide in his garden? "
absolutely! thats a really bad example.
"This definition of "wants to live" would encompass all plants as well."
so?
"I, as well as many scientists, would dispute that there is any complex decision-making involved at all when an insect is attracted to your flesh."
i never said there was. your point is moot.
Are you suggesting mind-body duality then? We know that mental activity ceases when someone dies.
So then any absolute proscription that uses that as a basis is either unfounded or impossible to follow.
This was directed at Yeshe.
I guess my main point is that one's state of mind is more important when taking action then rigidly following some absolute set of proscriptions.
Just because plants by their nature "want to live" too, doesnt give us the right to kill animals. We shouldnt kill plants either unless there is need.
Of course plants and animals will die through our actions and our intentions do count but we should be mindful and do as little harm as possible.
I doubt the fly wants you berate yourself and suffer over this.
what does this have to do with anything? My point is that saying killing insects is fine because something dead doesn't suffer (although something in the rocess of dying surely does) is only fair if you're willing to apply the same logic to yourself and others. Are you willing to shoot yourself then or would you rather live?
There are also many people who murder without suffering themselves.... Does that make it ok? "Your honour, the victim is dead and cannot suffer and I am content with my choice to kill him out of annoyance and am not suffering." "Well then, you may walk free."
Hello everyone! Very interesting conversation. I am not a Buddhist but I am drawn to it and have started a meditation practice recently. I like this forum. Real people who don't pretend to be perfect or have all the answers to life. Perfect people make me uncomfortable.
I live in an apartment and I am so grateful to see the exterminator when he shows up. I don't enjoy sharing my living space with roaches.
I'm not arguing that we should kill insects just for the hell of it, just that it isn't necessarily inherently wrong. In any case, I'm not sure what killing myself would prove. I couldn't kill myself without causing more suffering than if I were to continue to live, and this is true for most cases involving humans (though not all). If by my death suffering was reduced, then perhaps I would shoot myself.
If someone truly has good reason to believe that killing someone will reduce suffering over all other alternatives, I can't find fault with that. But you used the word "murder" which indicates that this is not the case, therefore there will necessarily be suffering.
Yep yep.
Yeah well welcome to Christianity.
The question is whether you can intentionally kill a mosquito with no ill-will. The Abhidhammattha-Sangaha, for example, states that:
As Nina Van Gorkom elaborates, from the Abhidhammic point of view killing is one of "three akusala kamma-pathas [unskillful course of action] accomplished through the body," and is "done with dosa-mula-citta [consciousness rooted in ill-will]" (Different Degrees of Lobha).
I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but it's something to think about. I mean, if you think about it, you're more likely to be killing a mosquito out of irritation (which is a type of ill-will) than loving-kindness.
When you find yourself in the position of wanting to kill an insect for whatever reason, say it's annoying you or it's grossing you out or it's just a convenience thing, stop yourself in your tracks and think, "This little being just wants to live. It is no threat to me at all. In fact, since I'm probably a few thousand times bigger than it is, I'm the threat. I'm the monster. It has as much right to be here as I do." Then leave it alone or move it gently outside.
Do this for about two weeks and then take stock of your mind. How has it changed? Is the change a good thing?
When I did this it blew my mind. Really. Well...not literally...but you know what I mean. It's an amazing, really surprising exercise. I highly recommend it.
Great advice, Brigid. I started doing the same thing a few years ago myself and I've really noticed a difference. Personally, I've found this practice to be a lot of help in developing compassion and loving-kindness.
Thanks for adding this point of view. This part (whether something can actually be killed without ill-will or self-view) is the part I'm not really sure about. It seems like it would hypothetically be possible, but I don't know if that is the case in practice.
What definition of sentience are you using here? There are some definitions of sentience which insects certainly do not satisfy.
The brain isnt considered the mind, besides who'd have thought there would be tremendous power unleashed by splitting an atom
I agree with you that a sentient being is a being that "perceives" anything. We know that flies perceive the aggression you show when you swat at it, because it flies away. Does it perceive it the same way we do? Probably not, maybe the fly reacts because of an instinct. Whose to say that everything we do and think isn't the result of instinct?
Do you consider dogs sentient beings? I find that we can communicate with dogs on an emotional level; we pat it's head and it's tail wags expressing it's happiness. We can't exactly communicate the same way intellectually; we can't teach a dog calculus, but we know it perceives happiness.
Beings can be at many different levels of understanding/perception, however, they are only capable of understanding the level that they are at in the here and now.They may not always be this way. Maybe the dog will evolve, get smarter and smarter, and eventually learn calculus. It may take unfathomable amounts of lives to do so, but it might. (Yay for math dogs!!):p
We can never be sure though, can we? Like your post alludes to, we are confined to our own experiences. Maybe the person next to you perceives reality completely different than us, but we'll never know...
When I was little, I used to fantasize about how maybe everyone saw the world in different colors, and only believed everyone saw the way they did because they had been taught to assign "this" name to "this" color. I thought maybe people around me were seeing the world in the view of those 3D glasses (the red and blue ones) and I still haven't figured out if they do or not...