Knowing that living beings (such as insects) will directly be killed as a result of your actions?

I agree! :heart:

1 Like

Hi friend @aconlan,

No problems at all. That’s what the forum is for. Well, I already did my best on this thread! :sweat_smile: But if the matter is seriously impotent for you, I strongly encourage you to read more about it directly from the original Jain and Buddhist texts rather than listen to someone like me interpreting those texts. For I may be totally wrong or inadequate in presenting these teachings (I feel I already am!).

Unfortunately the suttas don’t discuss this matter at such level (what we get is only calls for compassion toward beings, probably made to address the phenomenon of cruelty), but we can glean a Buddhist view on these matters from our general understanding of Dhamma and from the Buddha’s deconstruction of Jain views (particularly concerning kamma), scattered across the nikayas.

Jain texts are naturally rich in material on these issues, and you can find them in translation easily online, I guess. There’s nothing wrong in holding Jain views! The problem is in confusing them with the Buddhist doctrine. This is quite common though and you’ll agree that “Buddhism” has been appropriated to suit a multiplicity of moral stances, and even political ideologies! Strange though in the case of animal harm! Because people don’t need to do that as Jainism can serve and reinforce their positions quite perfectly! It’s the popularity of Buddhism I guess, and the extreme nature of Jainism. The problem is also that the attitude of many people on these matters is predominantly emotional, with little or no interest in cosmological understanding or dharmic foundation. That’s why I encourage you and others to read those texts, as I said earlier, perhaps you’ll conclude that Buddhism is lacking! Or that you prefer Jainism. Or that Dhammarakkhita is ignorant!

It’s the emotional attitude that makes concern for animal life characterised by upadana or attachment. This is what I mean by the word “obsession” here (I don’t really mean it in the strongest sense). Of course no one is speaking here against compassion for animals or is promoting their wanton murder. But a line exists, which separates an equanimous compassion founded on understanding, from an agitated worry founded on emotional attachment - and not a thin line.

The reason human is orders of magnitude more valuable than animals is that he can -even if just potentially- transcend existence (bhava), while animals cannot. In more simple words, but profound too:

It is human, not the animal, that can make something out of life that will not be squandered by death.

It is human, not the animal, that can utilise life for a purpose that transcends death.

3 Likes

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. - Dhp 129-130

If I were a mouse, I’d rather not get chopped up in a lawnmower.

Try to store firewood away from bugs, limit driving in whatever way you reasonably can, and generally just minimize all this sort of harm as much as you are able and willing. Also, avoid jobs that will involve large amounts of collateral damage.

I think if you see an animal in front of your lawnmower and just run over it anyway, you’re probably breaking the precept, perhaps out of convenience rather than malice though. If I were stuck in traffic and decided to drive my car up onto the sidewalk purely for the convenience of getting home quicker but also knowing that I was running people over, I’d be a murderer.

:anjal:

3 Likes

Thank you! :pray:

2 Likes

Ah, I was looking for it in the ‘Sutta’ tab and thought it was only going to be released with SCNext. :smiley:

Okay, we won’t bring up the trolley problem, then. :wink:

1 Like

I have a real-life example, of which I think illustrates well what I wanted to discuss regarding this topic.

I went to burn wood earlier and picked up a log to put in the already-burning fire. When picking it up, a bug crawled and fled into a hole inside the log.

Now, had I used the log and put it into the flames (rather than take another log), fully knowing there was a bug that crept inside a hole in it, would I have…

  1. Intentionally killed a living being?
  2. Broken the first precept?
  3. Would this have been an unwholesome action (kamma)?

I think ‘yes’ for the first, although it would be good to find Sutta references to support this position, and definely ‘yes’ for 2 and 3.

There is an element of awareness that we should probably avoid putting ourselves in situations where we are faced with impossible choices about whether or not to break precepts- for example one of the reasons I left my home country was because Sri Lanka has mosquitoes and while I had got used to brushing them off, it was rather impossible to do this all of the time. Ants were another problem there. I like beautiful flowers but some were not probable without killing snails. I let go of my desire for those plants. There was a wasp nest which I waited for the longest time as I was afraid it might sting a child but fortunately we kept away and it emptied over a winter and then I got rid of the nest. I used a humane rat trap and capture spiders to release in the wilds. Being prepared, minimise harm but don’t forget if the animals and you are both stuck in samsara, there’s no point.

The ultimate purpose of morality is the facilitation of the next step, which is unification of mind. Saving everything is wonderful but it’s like Christmas in the middle of the dark winter- death is inevitable. :skull: :evergreen_tree: :skull:

With metta

2 Likes

I think if you saw the bug and then threw it into the fire, then #1 would be true. If #1 is true, then to me that would make #2 and #3 true also.

1 Like

Yes, that would be true. Also it would cause remorse, and that would not be conducive to samadhi, thereby temporarily closing the path to nibbana.

with metta

4 Likes

Excellent point. Thus, the reason for precepts (in my understanding.)

1 Like

Yes, that’s right, without internal moral purity, purer states of mind aren’t accessible.:hearts:

with metta

3 Likes

“The wise in heart mourn not for those who live, nor for those who die.” _The Bhagvad-Gita

Hi Mat, I am responding to you because you have been the only person on this thread to even mention plants as I have a few questions on plant life. Someone told me that the Buddha instructed his disciples not to damage plant life so I did a search on access to insight dot com for ‘plant’ and ended up with half a dozen suttas where the Buddha says something along the lines of ‘He abstains from damaging seed and plant life’. Nothing more than that, just a single line.

Since then, I have been pondering the issue a fair bit and find now I have a real problem with mowing the lawn and pulling out weeds. The whole first precept is a bit of an issue for me, when I was younger - long before I even heard about Buddhism, I did a little fishing and hunting. Now I feel a whole lot of guilt about that and am starting to wonder if it has made me a bit overly sensitive in regards to killing plant life. I can’t mow the lawn anymore and I have real trouble with the idea of pulling plants out of the ground, even weeds. I have tried to do it but I get to guilty and the one day I did do it I found I was completely unable to get my mind to settle down in meditation, I kept feeling bad about destroying all the weeds I had pulled out of the ground.

As you can guess, I have taken those brief mentions to mean the Buddha values all life, not just animal life and that we should strive to not take any life, not even plant life, but then I have read this whole thread and no one else seems to have a problem with it so maybe I am overthinking (or more to the point, over-feeling) the issue.

I understand the Bhikkhu’s have some rules that forbid them from ‘killing’ plants or pruning them back, does anyone know if there are any other references to killing/damaging/pruning plants in the suttas? Also does anyone know what the reasons are for these lines about abstaining from damaging plant and seed life?

Perhaps one of the Bhikkhu’s who post here might be able to point me in the right direction or give some clarification?

Regards

The rules not to cut down trees/plants or to dig in soil are for monastics. Not only that, but the main reason why they were created, like many other rules, was because lay people observed bhikkhus doing a certain act—like cutting trees, plants or digging—and complained to the Buddha that it was not appropriate for a monk to do so.

Here is the origin story of pācittiya 10 (not to dig in soil):

At Āḷavī in the chief shrine at Āḷavī. Now at that time the monks of Āḷavī, making repairs, dug the ground and had it dug. People looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying:
“How can these recluses, sons of the Sakyans, dig the ground and have it dug? These recluses, sons of the Sakyans, are harming life that is one-facultied.”
Monks heard these people who looked down upon, criticised, spread it about. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying:
“How can these monks of Āḷavī dig the ground and have it dug?”
“Is it true, as is said, that you, monks, dug the ground and had it dug?”
“It is true, lord,” they said.
Thee enlightened one, the lord, rebuked them, saying:
“How can you, foolish men, dig the ground and have it dug? For, foolish men, people having consciousness as living beings are in the ground. It is not, foolish men, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:
“Whatever monk should dig the ground or have it dug, there is an offence of expiation.”
(Trans.: I.B. Horner)

At the time of the Buddha, Jain beliefs were that plants were one-facultied (ekindriya). However, they are not considered living beings (even if in modern times they are considered as “alive”). They don’t have consciousness.

So, not only is it not breaking the precept, it isn’t even unwholesome to cut down a tree for wood, or a plant as food.

Yes, I am aware of that. But:

“He abstains from damaging seed & plant life.”

“He abstains from damaging seed and plant life.”

'The recluse Gotama abstains from damaging seed and plant life."

“He abstains from damaging seed and plant life.”

“He abstains from damaging seed and plant life.”

“He abstains from damaging seed and plant life.”

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi.../dn/dn.02.0.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi.../dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html

I started looking for the same suttas here on SC and found for MN 38 that section has been omitted and there is an editors note saying the same as MN 27 so I looked at that one and found the same reference to not damaging plant and seed life in the section on virtue so I assume the others will all have something similar:

“He abstains from injuring seeds and plants.”
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn27

Would you get in trouble with a homeowner’s association or some other such institution if you just didn’t do any yard work?

1 Like

LOL

Most definitely. The local shire council here takes a dim view of overgrown jungles in peoples back yards, particularly in the wet season. That’s not the real concern though, my brother now does it for me (and that does not bother me in the slightest, absolutely no guilt/remorse over that). I am already quite careful to not kill animals and insects (although I have no qualms about bacteria) but after reading those one line references to not damaging plant and seed life I have found that I feel guilt after doing the weeding and the mowing.

To me it’s a question pertaining to meditation practice and developing sila and I am wondering what the Buddha might have had to say elsewhere on the subject, if there is anything else in the suttas that might help me gain a greater understanding.

There must be some deeper truth underlying the Buddha saying that or he would not have spoken about not damaging seed and plant life where he talks about the development of virtue. Never mind, I guess it makes no difference for me practice wise, I just can’t do it anymore without it affecting my meditation and that’s the way it is, I was just hoping to figure out why. Thanks for your help.

1 Like

Originally the Buddha seems to object on the grounds that people considered the earth as conscious. The idea then was to maintain the good reputation of the monks, rather than any other reason other than that. It’s import to note that it isn’t mentioned before the people complained about it and would leave me to think it isn’t integral to the gradual path, but important for monks who lived dependant on lay people.

As for feeling guilty after pulling up plants it is possible to feel guilty for things when there is no need to feel guilty especially for things which were culturally relevant 2500 years ago but not now. Inappropriate guilt arises from attachment to precepts (sila upadana), and this attachment leads to suffering, as all attachment can do. It is important to overcome this attachment as otherwise it will cause an agitated mind and disturb one’s meditation sometimes. The Buddha said Buddhists have to let go of all good and bad -eventually and certainly this includes attachment to good and aversion to the bad. It becomes important to mindfully and skilfully navigate ethical conundrums. Less being guided by emotional reactions and more moral thoughts would be a useful way to move forward. :face_with_monocle::slightly_smiling_face:

With metta

1 Like

LOL, from my experience killing insects or lawn creatures may be one of the least evil bits of kamma for HOAs!

1 Like

Actually according to Samseva’s above quote he says:

I don’t take that to infer the Buddha thought the ground itself was conscious but instead stated that living beings live in the soil, something we all know to be true.

That is all great but it sidesteps the main issue I am trying to understand.

Why did the Buddha say not to damage seed and plant life? Why is that part of the development of virtue?

Clearly the Buddha has made these statements to not damage plant and seed life not just once but several times in the suttas.

To dismiss it as just some sort of wrong view or attachment to the precepts ignores the reality that the Buddha very clearly said one should abstain from damaging plant and seed life. If it is unimportant, why is that monks have additional rules forbidding them from damaging seed and plant life over and above what is mentioned in the suttas?

All the same thank you for your effort to assist me.

I don’t think that by not damaging plant and seed life my progress on the path will be hindered, at the very least not doing so will ensure that at least my meditation is not unsettled and that I can attain calmness of mind more easily and will not have thoughts of remorse arise when I have managed to calm the mind down. At the end of the day being able to have peace of mind in meditation is more important to me than worrying that I might be erring on the side of striving too hard.

Surely that is the whole point, to avoid having these feelings arise and disturb the mind in the first place. How we behave has much to do with what feelings and emotions arise so if I can prevent them from arising by not engaging in certain behaviours then that is what I will do until someone can give me a good reason to act otherwise.

I am in complete agreement. :smile:

1 Like