question

[Nessa]

The five precepts are:

I undertake the precept to refrain from harming living creatures (killing).

Does this extend to animals?

The principles by which a person can be led to enlightenment are known as the Buddhadharma, or simply the Dharma. Dharma in this sense of the rather complex term means, "law, doctrine, or truth."

Now I know where Dharma of Dharma and Greg got her name.

 

[Arnack]

Yes, it most certainly includes animals, as well as any living creature.

 

[Nessa]

Thank you.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Nessa,
Kindly add this to the understanding about Killing:
Forget killing even an ANT or FLY by action; mere *thinking* of killing too is going against the principle.
Love & rgds

 

[Hyperborean]

Yes, it extends to animals. Given the Buddhist notion of re-incarnation, one might consider any animal to have been a relative in a past life; thus the act of killing even an ant or a fly will accrue bad karma.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Hyperborean,
After all we are all ONE.
Existencially there is no difference between an animal or humans except that humans have a developed mind and the only creature that can realise the self.
Love & rgds

 

[Nessa]

Thank you everybody. I share many psychological beliefs with Buddhism.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Aren't we bound to fail at first precept from the start? For instance, just about everything we eat requires a living thing to die.

 

[zenzero]

friend Scarlett Wampus,
You have chosen to be a Buddhist and so have to prepare for detachment even with what you eat,
Love & rgds

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

friend Scarlett Wampus,
You have chosen to be a Buddhist and so have to prepare for detachment even with what you eat,
Love & rgds

Well, unless I can develop the capacity to photosynthesise so I can live on sunlight, water and soil nutrients...Wait a minute! Soil nutrients mostly come from dead living things.

Zenzero, aren't the precepts guidelines? Should we treat the teachings of Buddhism as abstract absolutes & metaphysics or general principles & metaphors?

 

[Halcyon]

Yes, it most certainly includes animals, as well as any living creature.

Plants? Funghi? Salmonella?

It's impossible to go through life without harming a living being, just being alive requires that you kill - whether it be the unconcious and automatic killing of invading bacteria and parasites, or the consumption of organic matter, we all kill.

I interpret it as causing unnecessary harm, like bull fighting or fox hunting or even squishing flies.
Eating and self defense I don't count as unnecessary, although I don't eat a lot of meat due to farm animal welfare concerns.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I find the eight fold path and four noble truths excellent general principles. The five precepts not so much.

Its not that I disagree with them. The moral ideas they represent are sound enough. Its just that personally there are more relevant precepts I can think of to set for myself - moral ideas I really need a helpful reminder to live by that particularly suit my circumstances. I know in some circles that would mean I would not be considered Buddhist.

 

[Nessa]

Isn't it more about whether or not you intentionally kill? I think to follow the precept to the extreme, you would have to be a fruitarian. And even then you would accidentally kill some living things.

 

[3.14]

but do you get bad karma if you eat a hamburger? since you haven't killed the cow? or does just the butcher get it?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

but do you get bad karma if you eat a hamburger? since you haven't killed the cow? or does just the butcher get it?

Well this is how someone once explained it to me: The cow's destiny is a result of its karma. The effect on your destiny as a result of eating the cow is your karma. The effect on the butcher's destiny as a result of killing the cow is his karma.

And that was supposed to make sense, nevermind Anicca and dependent origination.

There is no easy answer. Then again, in my opinion it helps if the question isn't centred around an archaic idea such as karma.

 

[Dreamwolf]

So what could a Buddhist do about household pests? Assuming that they follow that precept. Do they just have to live with bugs?

 

[Halcyon]

Isn't it more about whether or not you intentionally kill? I think to follow the precept to the extreme, you would have to be a fruitarian. And even then you would accidentally kill some living things.

I think its the kind of topic you could argue about until the cows come home, from whatever trip they've been on.

We must kill to survive, is killing a carrot not as bad as killing a sheep? One has a more sensory existence, that is certain, but does that mean the carrot has less right to life?

All things die, a sheep will die naturally after 12 years, its corpse will feed the worms, bacteria and funghi of the soil. If a man kills the sheep at, say, 1 year - that sheep will feed a maybe dozen people for 2 or 3 days.
So the issue is consciously ending an animals life, rather than letting its life end via unconscious natural processes - the death itself is inevitable and creatures of some form will consume the body.

So the next question is, is death suffering and is causing death for food causing unnecessary harm?
Well, letting a sheep die of old age or disease will surely be a prolonged and more painful death than instantly stunning it and slitting its throat - thus if death is suffering and harmful then conscious, controlled and efficient slaughter is, in a way, the quickest and least painful way to go.

I think the nature of these facts boil down the argument of whether killing for food is ethical or not to a personal conscientious choice.
Can you live with the knowledge that an animal died specifically to be eaten, and then partake in that meat? That decision, I feel, must be a personal choice that has been made after extensive contemplation, not a rule you are to obey.

My personal philosophy is (and I'm sure most other Buddhists would disagree with me on it) that if one does not cling to the idea that life must exist for as long as possible, and realises that death and killing for food is natural - that so long as an animal is treated well during its life, quickly ending that life to sustain others is in itself not wrong, and will not hinder ones path to enlightenment.
I don't eat a lot of meat at all since I'll only eat meat from free-to-roam, organically raised "happy" animals which is both hard to find and expensive.

 

[Nessa]

A well-thought-out post Halcyon, thank you. Though one point I'd like to comment on.

We must kill to survive, is killing a carrot not as bad as killing a sheep? One has a more sensory existence, that is certain, but does that mean the carrot has less right to life?

Many fruits, veggies, and seeds can be harvested without killing the plant, tree, or bush.

 

[Halcyon]

A well-thought-out post Halcyon, thank you.

Thank you for the compliment.

Many fruits, veggies, and seeds can be harvested without killing the plant, tree, or bush.

This is true, although I'd be quite skeptical of the idea that a human could survive on leaves, fruits (seeds is killing baby plants ) and sap alone.

Have you heard of Jainism? Jains will not consume anything that causes a living being to die, be it plant or animal. I have no idea how they manage such a diet though.

 

[Nessa]

[/font]



Have you heard of Jainism? Jains will not consume anything that causes a living being to die, be it plant or animal. I have no idea how they manage such a diet though.

No, I found this link and read it. The link was a bit vague about their diet. In practice Vegetarian has more than one definition. I wonder if their diet is a bit like a Fruitarian .

Some fruitarians will eat only what falls (or would fall) naturally from a plant, that is: foods that can be harvested without killing the plant.

Which can cause some deficiencies. Which begs the question, are supplements effective and are they considered a satisfactory alternative in Buddhism?