It must be because all things are interconnected 
more seriously thanks for your answer; that’s fine, I don’t need to take this further at least for now 
1 Like
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but as far as I remember, there is a place in the BMC where ven. Thanissaro speculates that it’s okay if you do something that needs doing and it might injure small insects that are difficult to account for in the process. It’s probably in the discussion on the rule to not kill animals. That being said, there is a great deal of explicit attention given to mosquito larvae in water supplies as far as I remember.
Monks in strict Vinaya monasteries do burn wood for washing or dyeing robes for example, even though it is statistically certain there will be some insects trapped in the wood when put in the fire. They just try to minimize the damage as much as they can by first placing the wood in a place less accessible to insects for a few days.
1 Like
Prof Gombrich’s concept of compassion divorced from the rest the path of Buddhism, is a narrow perspective at best, and misleading people and at worst. It is for another thread though I think.
With metta
What would determine it is the mind state in which the volitional actions (kamma). The mind state of someone who formulates a volitional action to kill their mother is different than someone who kills a rat out of fear, for instance. That’s just my understanding, but Dhammarakkhita is doing a far better job explaining this than me! 
1 Like
I still like to come back to the idea of precepts as training rules, rather than laws or ordinances that can be “broken.” Instead, these precepts are instructions and guides to the development of our practice, and our intention and the resultant kamma can operate along a wide gray scale. So long as we endeavor to cultivate good intentions and actions, and minimize the negative, we are implementing these training rules well.
So, rather than seeing the actions of driving a vehicle, for example, as an activity that “breaks” the 1st precept, we endeavor to minimize the harm that we cause as much as possible. Knowing that insects will die as a result of driving a vehicle, we might choose to make a long drive during hours of the day where fewer insects are out and about.
I feel that when we take the idea of “breaking” precepts out of the equation, we introduce a bit less neurosis and self-punishment about the training, and the actions we take and the resultant kamma are all part of a gray scale continuum that we really cannot measure day to day. We can only strive, with these precepts in mind, to do our very best. We take the precepts very seriously, and do not give license to the idea that as guidelines we can be undisciplined in our training about keeping them, but see them as training rules and not commandments that subject us to “sin” and self-imposed punishment.
I’ve heard too many stories of young monks who caused some small infraction (ie slept on a bed 1 mm too high, for an absurd example) and then grieved and worried about the infraction for days. I don’t feel that this is the spirit of the training that is intended.
4 Likes
I posted a link in the AV thread, which seems relevant, even if not a direct response to the first post in this thread. Not sure how to directly link it here, so I apologize for the duplication, but I thought some others might be interested (moderators, feel free to delete if inappropriate here):
3 Likes
Thank you Michael. I agree that they are training guidelines and that kamma is a much more complicated concept.
I agree. The feelings I was describing are not really associated with sin or punishment. They are not even voluntary (I don’t think.) It is just a sick feeling when I think I might be hurting or killing sentient beings. In the example of mowing the yard, the problem arises that my parents are not healthy enough to mow their lawn and if they don’t they will be fined for not doing so. It becomes an issue of choosing between compassion for my parents or compassion for the beings living in the yard. It’s a very difficult situation for me and I don’t feel really good about either choice. I think there are a lot of these “gray” actions that we deal with every day in Samsara.
4 Likes
I think it is appropriate Linda. I watched this documentary a few days ago and thought it made some really good points. It was very hard for me to watch some of the scenes of animals being hurt, but I guess that was the point. 
1 Like
And, Alfred, I didn’t mean to pick out your quote necessarily, but only as it was a thoughtful comment that inspired me to write something. I think the fact that you meditate on these questions and struggle with the most skillful response cultivates, in and of itself, bright kamma. In a way, we blend into our daily decisions elements of bright kamma, and perhaps some sense of samsara as well. I recall the Buddha lauding the care that we give to our parents, and the idea that even if we carried them on our shoulders (with other complications involved) we could never fully repay them for their giving us life and caring for us. So, your actions in favor of your parents seem to me to be very bright and well supported by the Buddha’s own words. I hope that any sick feelings you have can be brightened by the thought that you clearly have your heart and mind in the right place!
4 Likes
I didn’t think that you did Michael. Your kind words are greatly appreciated!
2 Likes
I have to say that I had to turn my eyes away from a couple scenes. But not out of denial as I certainly don’t need convincing… I became vegetarian over 40 years ago and can’t bear to kill even the tiniest insect and I do all I can in terms of ethical consumption, helping animals/the environment, etc… Of course I know that many insects and others, are killed just by virtue of growing veggies & grains or driving when we have to, and many other things!
But as has already been said in this discussion, as well as in the film, it’s beneficial to do all we can to minimize the suffering of any beings, take good care, and certainly not to intentionally kill, while at the same time knowing as long as we are in samsara (and certainly the goal is to get out), there is suffering, and each person has to investigate for themselves and make their own choices… (I usually don’t even get into discussions about such things as vegetarianism/veganism, etc and hesitated to even post the link, but I felt the film has a lot more to it than whether one should adopt a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle)
Just to say, for those who might be considering watching the film, there are only a very short few scenes that are disturbing. The footage is beautiful, the interviews are excellent (and really framed in terms of the teachings) and I found it to be very inspiring.
with much mettā
3 Likes
Well said! 
1 Like
Wonderful reminder - thank you
2 Likes
Just to clarify, I understand the precepts in regards to what I wanted to discuss—as well as that some aspects of the questions I proposed are not Buddhist in and of themselves. My intention with the topic was to push the discussion of unintentionally—but knowingly—killing living beings (such as insects), past the application of the first precept.
In certain situations, where a choice that you make—either out of preference, convenience or obligation—results in significant amounts of living beings dying—and that you are knowledgable that this is taking or is going to take place—I think any good person at one point asks him/herself if such mental and bodily action (kamma), in regards to such choices, negatively effects one’s mind (of which I fully believe it does, even though it wouldn’t necessarily break the precept).
When this is simply being discussed (and I’m addressing everyone), it is difficult to relate to it. However, when such a situation happens to you (such as myself these past few weeks, slightly agonizing over having to burn firewood that has a significant amount of bugs/worms on and in the wood, or chopping up frogs in the case of Mara and Alfred) the matter takes a whole other meaning/perspective. 
Bhante @anon61506839, would you have access to the origin story of pācittiya 20 (pouring water containing living beings) and pācittiya 62 (use of water containing living beings)?
Hi friend @samseva … What do you mean “have access”? 
anyways of course I know these rules; I studied vinaya in so much detail and will possibly publish a book about it.
I totally understand what you mean. Example: seeing a line of ants passing through the road back and forth horizontally and you cannot wait till nightfall when they retreat to their home before you drive on! You drive on anyways knowing this situation, does that count as intentional killing?
Certainly yes from a Jain perspective. But not necessarily from a Buddhist one, though there’s no agreement amongst Buddhists on this point. But these things are determined according to scale, that is, is it a line of ants or squirrels? How many will die or be injured? How often do they appear on this road? And so on.
Another factor is whether you have alternatives or not: are there ant-free roads that you can take? Do you have the time and capacity to wait or resort to alternatives? Is it convenient or is it turning your life very difficult?
Again the point is not just about the life of the individual ant, but perhaps equally about your heart. If this practice is making you grow in Dhamma, then great; but if you observe yourself growing uneasy and agitated, then you’re doing something wrong here, and the ant has died anyways by another (ridiculous) cause already! Obsession with this sort of situation is certainly the work of Mara, the work of ego, and of the desire to feel good about oneself! So the quest to save the animal does not always emanate from a noble heart as might readily appear! Otherwise it is due to Jain philosophy about life and kamma, which is contrary to Dhamma and is a serious form of false view from a Buddhist perspective.
I usually take measures to make the environment in which I live safer for other beings. For example I’m cautious not to leave a water surface exposed. But I’m not agitated about these things, and even when I catch myself negligent! I get ants on the sink occasionally, and they usually stay for few days! I don’t know what interest they have in it, but I avoid using water on it those days because I have an easy alternative. But what if this was the only way to get water?! I would remove the ants first. But what if I was in great hurry for an urgent reason that requires me to use the water instantly? I would use it with regret only if I wasn’t sufficiently mindful! Otherwise I’d use it with compassionate equanimity (& wonder later about where’s the citta of those ants now, and what cosmology brings about kamma in the form of an ant in the first place!).
And what would I be really and immediately regretful about? Hurting the feelings of a human being, even slightly. For here, friend Samseva, there’s always an alternative! And the heart of a human being, is worth a universe and everything in it!
3 Likes
Though we may kill rarely, or occasionally, one shouldn’t become complacent and feel ‘this is unavoidable’ and harden one’s heart. Just as being overly remorseful is falling into defilements, so is becoming overly heard hearted. There must be that twang of remorse- its the sound of healthy moral life. Letting it then carry on and on is a self-indulgence, more connected to conceit of the ‘moral Me’. Honesty, and to oneself, is a very important factor.
with metta
4 Likes
I would just say we should avoid unintentional/indirect harm as much as we are able and willing, with an eye towards expanding over time what we are willing to do to avoid indirect harm. There isn’t really much else we can do aside from that.
Think: Happy, at rest,
may all beings be happy at heart.
Whatever beings there may be,
weak or strong, without exception,
long, large,
middling, short,
subtle, blatant,
seen & unseen,
near & far,
born & seeking birth:
May all beings be happy at heart. - Sn 1.8
4 Likes
Yes, but this is not an obsession and isn’t something that has been occurring for a lengthy period of time at all. The questions and reflections simply came about due to a particular situation where I had to burn wood covered with insects and worms (both outside and inside the wood), on a daily basis. I didn’t completely stop burning firewood needed for heating (careful checking), but it did make me think about how I was presented with the conundrum of unintentionally having to kill, or of having to do without heating. Are those complex situations not important to look into?
It’s not about Jainism or even about Buddhism (or about one’s ego) at all, but about not wanting living beings to be burnt alive and suffer a painful death.
I don’t doubt that you know these rules; I was wondering if you had access to the Sutta Vibhaṅga, since it is not available on SuttaCentral, as to know the origin story of those rules.
1 Like
I’d been interested in seeing how the following two situations are understood, as well as the moral aspects of each choice. Anyone feel free to give your thoughts on the matter or even directly reply to the questions themselves.
Option 1 and 2 are very similar—although option 2 is slightly and trivially better. Option 1 results in 10-20 insects dying, while option 2 results in no insects dying—and the person is knowledgeable of this.
Would option 1 be the most wholesome choice? Would choosing option 2 (again, slightly and trivially better) be unwholesome? Would it be in the grey zone of intentionally killing—as him/her choosing the trivially better option directly results in living beings dying? Would it be blameless?
A very wealthy man is about to buy his future wife’s wedding ring and finds two of which he particularly likes. The first ring is sold by a company who sources its diamonds from North American mines, while the second ring is sold by a company who sources its diamonds from African warlord mining operations (i.e., blood diamonds). The wealthy man is fully knowledgable of these details, from having studied and owning stocks of diamond mining companies in the past.
Both rings look exactly the same, have the same karats of gold, as well as the same carats in diamond, however, the second ring (with the blood diamond) costs $100 less (for a $7000 ring).
If the man chooses the second ring solely to save the $100 (“I’ll have a good meal at a nice restaurant tonight.”), would it not be an unwholesome choice rooted in greed? Would it be correct to say that he is indirectly funding African warlords (and very possibly the death of civilians or combatants in those regions)? Does this choice not negatively affect his mind?