We also have to keep in mind that in Pj 2 the brick issue doesn’t appear in the rule at all. It is a rule about stealing, and the story of the brick kuti is just a side issue. These stories are told in the Vibhanga, not in the Patimokkha; and the Vibhangas are much later material. Maybe at the time they were compiled it had become normal or a social convention to be more concerned with unintentional killing, and so it made its way into the vinaya.
But we’ve come quite a bit astray from the vassa retreat, don’t we?
Because “purpose” and “intention” are not the same! And because intentionally exposing a life to death and premeditated murder are the same from the perspective of the killed!!
What do you think, friend, when with the purpose of warming oneself, one burns your house while they knew you’re sleeping inside? Would you still count this as “unintentional” killing?! If you do, then let’s simply say that the Buddha most probably disagrees with you!
The intention to kill is fulfilled the moment one consciously embarks on an optionalaction that one already knows will expose the life of a creature to death. So simply by breathing I am in fact killing other creatures, but breathing is not an optional act that I can stop or avoid; building with clay is.
No I don’t think we did, we’re right on topic here!
I don’t know anything about the authenticity opinions really and any part or the whole canon can always be argued to be inauthentic or late! The only thing I usually look at is the consistency of a certain text with the rest, and as I mentioned the Buddha’s compassion and concern for gentle forms of life appears in various places in the text. As I just replied above I think it’s a question of practicality and necessity, if one can possibly avoid endangering life one should make that effort, especially given that, though unintentional killing is karmicly insignificant, the life of a being is karmicly significant! But of course this is only my opinion. Be on your guard!
This seems the obvious route, I think. The regular folk get all uppity, the Buddha talks about the Rains, and then of course is the only time when mud bricks - or bricks of any kind - come into use, because before that the Sangha was touring all the time, and who was building a brick hut? I think Rains monasteries have to show up first.
Does it make sense that the Buddha would be concerned about mud bricks, and not Rains mud? I don’t think so…
Maybe there’s just the use of mud bricks coming from this incident?
Of course at the time of the Buddha using bricks was not yet very common. And in the story the monk does not use actual bricks either, but he builds his hut out of mud and then, having been a potter in his lay life and therefore knowing how to deal with fire, just sets the whole kuti on fire.
Can we ascribe the invention of bricks maybe not to the Buddha himself, but to one of his monks?
I reckon @sabbamitta has a very good point. Probably what made Ven. Dhaniya’s construction project troublesome was the use of his previous lay skillset and making use of fire to bake the clay of his hut into terracotta (which by the way means baked soil!).
In two ways that is problematic: i) it may set the precedence for an independence and self sufficiency inconsistent with the life of a contemplative; ii) it increases the risk of bhikkhus directly killing living beings in the pursuit of their four requisites and therefore drawing from other sects nothing but criticism.
