[Gerribase]

I've been reading about the 5 lay precepts, and the first is abstaining from harming living things, and ultimately not killing or condoning any killing. I work as a veterinary technician, and one of the most important parts of my job is assisting in euthanasia of sick, old and/or debilitated animals. Does this go against the first precept or is it merciful in regards to Buddhist teaching?

[IronpumpedLady]

Hi Ferret,

It's a very complicated moral question, and I'm heading off to work...but just to give a short answer from a Mahayana perspective, I'd say intention is an important factor here. If they are in great pain or misery and your motivation is to relieve their suffering, it might be justifiable.

We always have to be careful about making exceptions to the precepts though, because there is a risk of modifying them for the sake of our own convenience, or of opening the door to abuses. The fact that an animal is old or infirm doesn't necessarily mean that it wants to be killed.

[wowwieholmes]

...ultimately... Does this go against the first precept or is it merciful in regards to Buddhist teaching?

hello Ferret

the Buddhist teachings are ultimately about the mitigation of suffering

thus, regarding karma (action), such as killing, the buddha prescribed non-killing because this abides with freedom from suffering

for example, when men go to war, they often return with post traumatic stress disorders, which can last for their entire lives

however, whether the act of killing generates suffering is dependent on intention & the situation

ultimately, the buddha said: "karma is intention" (here)

thus when the buddha described "killing", he described it as killing with violence, with hatred, without mercy, without conscience, being bloody-handed, etc

therefore, in your job, it would seem you are not ending life ("killing") with a violent intention. you are not taking life in a manner that generates suffering in yourself & others

for example, when you end the life of sick, old and/or debilitated animals, you are not doing this against the wishes of those people who love those animals

this is contrary, to say, a man who goes to war, who kills the loved ones of others, against the wishes of those who love those killed

instead, your intention is a compassionate & considerate intention rather than a violent & inconsiderate intention

utlimately, the precept is merely a training rule

ultimately, the purpose of the precept rests in your conscience, given its purpose is to safeguard your conscience

you can find an extensive discussion (here) on this subject, including the opinion of a monk named Ajahn Brahm

when asked about sick, old & dying animals, Ajahn Brahm often advises people to: "Ask the animal"; one should consider making their decision after asking the animal do they wish for their life to end

kind regards

element


[the Buddha said:]

And how are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone is a killer of living beings: he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all living beings. (Majjhima Nikaya 41)

Abandoning the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, with rod and weapon laid aside, conscientious, merciful, he abides compassionate to all living beings. (Majjhima Nikaya 51)

Here, someone, abandoning the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, with rod and weapon laid aside, gently and kindly, he abides compassionate to all living beings. (Majjhima Nikaya 114)

[Vomephems]

Just sharing . In Buddhism that I current aware , is all about understanding "ownself" , freeling "ownself" by being awake and in no condition I shoud interfere in others livelihood or livings , as I can only learn from others actions but should never interfere in their own purification process .

But...........
In any condition of any situation I should helps others just to avoid my own regret after I advance to greater awareness if I never helps them when I am capable to do so ......

So the question is how I could know when others need my helps ? If in human perhaps if we can communicate with them but what about others livings ?
in Buddhism that I currently aware , I MUST aware of all my intention & action in order not to regret it after I advance to greater awareness so before I act I must aware my intention of doing so and my actions should in line with my intention .....
So the question is are we " knowledgeable" enough to understand others living of what is best for them / Before we could confidently " helps " them to said to be ease their suffering ?
Human always make judgement based on "Knowledge" from their culture , sociaty , beliefs , lifestyles , texts or religion and make judgement based on their knowledge .....that is perhaps a common human practice but what about Buddhism ?
In Buddhism that I currently aware , knowledge is only a tiny part as I can not make any judgement , actions or have any intention based solely on " knowledge" but I have to aware of of all my desire , emotions , greed , compassion , love , fear , devotion etc and act accordingly .
All actions & intention whether is " right" or "wrong" , "good or bad" will be a part of learning process for me towards emptiness .

Thks
CSEe

[Fluivelip]

The precepts are to guide and are not hard and fast rules. I would suggest you act for the greater good and only you can decide what that is. If you are helping animals out of suffering that were going to die in pain otherwise then I would think you are acting for the greater good. If you have to do this with healthy animals that are not in pain it may be a more difficult question but are you acting for the greater good if you lose your job and can't support yourself/family?. If you don't look after yourself you will not be able to look after others.
One other thing comes to mind, If you don't work there then the same animals will still be there and still be euthanised, they are not saved by you not working there but you could be playing an important role by staying in the job and ensuring that the animals are treated well.
If you left the job and then and a less caring person took your position, what have you achieved?
I hope this is of some help to you

[bestcigsnick]

Ultimately it all depends on how you feel in your gut about the killing.

We are always killing beings from germs to insects/plants etc. Euthanasia(mercy killing) would be black and white karma with black and white results.


"Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of kamma ... What is black kamma, black result? Some people in this world are given to killing, given to stealing, given to sexual infidelity, given to lying, given to drinking intoxicants which lead to heedlessness. This is called black kamma, black result.

"Bhikkhus, what is white kamma, white result? Some people in this world dwell aloof from killing, aloof from stealing, aloof from sexual infidelity, aloof from lying, aloof from the drinking of intoxicants which lead to heedlessness. This is called white kamma, white result.

"Bhikkhus, what is kamma both back and white with result both black and white? Some people in this world create actions through body ... speech ... mind which are both harmful and not harmful. This is called 'kamma both black and white with result both black and white.'

"Bhikkhus, what is kamma neither black nor white, with result neither black nor white, which leads to the cessation of kamma? Within those three kinds of kamma, the intention to abandon (those kinds of kamma), this is called the kamma which is neither black nor white, with result neither black nor white, which leads to the ending of kamma."

[egoldhyip]

"Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of kamma ...."

Do you have the sutta reference, please Pegembara?

[stuck_in_WA]

I recognise this as the Ariyamagga Sutta. This section which I have highlighted from an essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu , available online, found when I was seeking some writings about intention and kamma ( karma ) may be useful here also -

Essential to the Buddha's second insight was his realization of the mind's role in determining the moral quality of actions. His analysis of the process of developing a skill showed him that skillfulness depended not so much on the physical performance of an act as on the mental qualities of perception, attention, and intention that played a part in it. Of these three qualities, the intention formed the essence of the act [§10] — as it constituted the decision to act — while attention and perception informed it. Thus the skillfulness of these mental phenomena accounted for the act's kammic consequences.

The less greed, aversion, and delusion motivating the act, the better its results. Unintentional acts would have kammic consequences only when they resulted from carelessness in areas where one would reasonably be held responsible. Intentional actions performed under the influence of right view — which on this level means conviction in the principle of kamma conviction in the principle of kamma [II/E; III/A; §106] — led inherently to pleasant states of rebirth, while those performed under the influence of wrong view led to unpleasant states. Thus the quality of the views on which one acts — i.e., the quality of the perception and attention informing the intention — is a major factor in shaping experience.

This observation undercuts the radical distinction between mind and material reality that is taken for granted in our own culture and was also assumed by many of the Samana schools of the Buddha's time. From the Buddha's viewpoint, mental and physical phenomena are two sides of a single coin, with the mental side of prior importance [§8].

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...1.html#part1-b

For my purposes here, please interpret rebirth as you see fit - lol.

[inmeirulez]

Totally off topic, this Sutta reminds me of Amma Ariyan - roughly translated as " for my mother's information " - is a 1986 Malayalam film directed by filmmaker John Abraham- recommend especially right now ... more info here http://www.cinemaofmalayalam.net/ammaariyan.html

Relevant point being that there will always be politics of right and wrong.