[MaugleeRobins]

Hello everyone,

As a buddhist beginner (less than a year), I have been focussing on my daily actions and meditation rather than getting bogged down in some of the discussions between the subtle differences between buddhist traditions etc. Along this line, one of the fundamental buddhist beliefs is to prevent harm to sentient beings, including bugs, ants and worms etc.

I spend time gardening and obviously the purpose of growing up seedlings is to nurture them until fully grown.. there are many bugs that would also like to feast on my vegetables.. do they deserve to eat my vegetables (and kill the plant, thus preventing me from eating it) or should I apply various means to prevent the bugs from eating them. Often, many of these measures may bring harm to the bugs. I do not inherently wish harm to the bugs, but by adding chemicals to the plants, would I indirectly be wishing harm to the bugs?

Secondly, I wanted to find out about peoples thoughts on incidental harm inflicted on creatures. When walking about, there is a great potential to step on bugs and ants crawling on the ground or when driving along highways, there is also the chance of hitting animals and flying insects that splat on the windscreen. Are these incidental deaths, merely a part of my human existence and physical nature. How should I think about this harm?

Thank you for any answers you may have to help solve my practical problems!

Warmest regards,
Nick

[frequensearules]

The Buddha taught that intention (motivation) is what is important.

If you are motivated by the need to eat then you have to do what is necessary, that isn't the same as being motivated by disregard for life perceived as lesser than yours.

It's best to be mindful and practical rather than over idealistic, if you bought your vegetables at the supermarket you wouldn't be directly involved in killing pests however the farmer would still need to on your behalf.

[emily]

hi Nick

i do not know much about gardening. (i pay a gardener to mow my lawns and look after my garden )

however, you may wish to investigate alternative forms of gardening, such as Permaculture, where all life lives in natural co-existence

these website may help you:

http://www.permacultureglobal.com/us...-leon-van-wyk;

http://www.integro.info/

kind regards

element

[CiccoineFed]

Hi Element,

I have spent some time investigating permaculture methods and would love to take a course in the future. I do not use synthetic chemicals in my garden. My question was more oriented around the realities of my actions and whether unintentional killing of a creature is still deemed to generate negative karma. I am aware that even compassionate killing still generates negative karma.

Thank you to everyone who has replied

Warm regards,
Nick

[chujwduperjadzi]

My question was more oriented around the realities of my actions and whether unintentional killing of a creature is still deemed to generate negative karma. I am aware that even compassionate killing still generates negative karma.

most monks get around this by getting laypeople to do work for them. but i have lived in monastaries where monks dig the soil

buddha taught karma is intention. thus, in buddhism, the unintentional killing of a creature is not deemed to generate negative karma

it is important to understanding the core buddhist teaching is not about karma. it is about liberation from karma

your concerns, whilst important to you, Buddha regarded as a fetter/obstacle (sīlabbata-parāmāso) to enlightenment

when an insect is unintentionally killed, an inner mental karmic effect cannot even be discerned. thus to believe there is a negative effect can be creating something out of nothing

in the following sutta, the buddha taught the untrained mind generates suffering from trifling acts of karma

kind regards




Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in wisdom: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.

Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now and, for the most part, barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in wisdom: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now and, for the most part, barely appears for a moment.

Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

Nibbedhika Sutta: Penetrative

[CtEkM8Vq]

in the following sutta, the buddha explained relating to the necessity of food:

How, O monks, should the nutriment edible food be considered?

Suppose a couple, husband and wife, have set out on a journey through the desert, carrying only limited provisions. They have with them their only son, dearly beloved by them. Now, while these two traveled through the desert, their limited stock of provisions ran out and came to an end, but there was still a stretch of desert not yet crossed. Then the two thought: 'Our small stock of provisions has run out, it has come to an end; and there is still a stretch of desert that is not yet crossed. Should we not kill our only son, so dearly beloved, prepare dried and roasted meat and, eating our son's flesh, we may cross in that way the remaining part of the desert, lest all three of us perish?'

And these two, husband and wife, killed their only son, so dearly beloved by them, prepared dried and roasted meat, and, eating their son's flesh, crossed in that way the remaining part of the desert. And, while eating their son's flesh, they were beating their breast and crying: 'Where are you, our only and beloved son? Where are you, our only and beloved son?'

What do you think, O monks? Will they eat the food for the pleasure of it, for enjoyment, for comeliness' sake, for (the body's) embellishment?

Certainly not, O Lord.

Will they not rather eat the food merely for the sake of crossing the desert?

So it is, O Lord.

Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh

[BipiewExifese]

Okay, cop mode; legaly defined and used, intention is an act purposly committed with full knowledge of the acts circumstances. So, for me intention must be connected to free will, and knowledge of what occurs after an act is done. But, by this standard, does it create negative Karma if I must take life to save the lives of others?

[rostpribru]

hi

in Buddhism, intention is not related to free will. intention can be 'bad', 'good' and 'enlightened'. both good and bad intention, but particularly bad, are products of ignorance & craving rather than free will. buddha said about good & bad intention:

And how, O monks, should the nutriment volitional thought [intention] be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke. Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men [i.e., good & bad intention] would seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows: 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or deadly pain.'

In that manner, I say, O monks, should the nutriment volitional thought be considered. If the nutriment volitional thought is comprehended, the three kinds of craving are thereby comprehended. And if the three kinds of craving are comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the noble disciple.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....063.nypo.html ***

[hiedeemom]

But, by this standard, does it create negative Karma if I must take life to save the lives of others?

the intention here is to save the life of others. thus it does not predominantly create negative karma

although karma (action) comes from intention, the importance of intention is it effects the quality of the result, i.e., how the mind feels after the karma is performed

so life may be taken to save the lives of others. this may result in some trauma. but in the long term, when the action can be justified by one's conscience then dissolving any traumatic effects is easier

[Seisyvose]

the intention here is to save the life of others. thus it does not predominantly create negative karma

although karma (action) comes from intention, the importance of intention is it effects the quality of the result, i.e., how the mind feels after the karma is performed

so life may be taken to save the lives of others. this may result in some trauma. but in the long term, when the action can be justified by one's conscience then dissolving any traumatic effects is easier

Thank you.