the 1st precept: is it about not killing human beings, only?
 

dear forum

the 1st precept, in Pali, is: pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi

'pāṇa' = breath, as in the term 'anapanasati'

other Pali teachings specifically about the 1st precept include:

Idha, gahapatayo, ekacco pāṇātipātī hoti, luddo [luddo dāruṇo (ka.) ṭīkā oloketabbā] lohitapāṇi hatappahate niviṭṭho adayāpanno pāṇabhūtesu [sabbapāṇabhūtesu (syā. kaṃ. ka.)].

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 sabbapāṇabhūtesu = all breathing (living) beings

the words "satta" (persons) or "manussa" (human beings) are not used here

so is the 1st precept about not killing human beings, only?

or is it about not killing any beings whenever possible?

do we have any other references to clarify this topic?

thanks

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/confused.gif

At the Buddhanet Basic Studies guide, it says for the first precept:

1) To undertake the training to avoid taking the life of beings. This precept applies to all living beings not just humans. All beings have a right to their lives and that right should be respected.


http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/budethics.htm

From Wat Pah Nanachat the International Forest Monastery:


Five Training Precepts: Ethical standards for the cultivation of virtue

1." Harmlessness and nonviolence: to cherish all life — I undertake the training to refrain from intentionally taking the life of living beings.

The first precept entails the development of metta (goodwill and loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) toward all beings. This includes even the creatures that we may be afraid of (e.g. spiders) or who may hurt us (e.g. snakes and scorpions).

In our practice of metta-karuna we need to make an extra effort not to swat at a mosquito or squash a small spider. Insect repellent may offer an alternative, especially for the early evenings. Mindful of the suffering and unwholesome kamma produced by the taking of life, with this precept we aspire to offer our practice of benevolence and harmlessness as a protection to all beings with which we share the forest. "

http://www.watpahnanachat.org/8-precepts.php

As every Being is endowed with Buddha Nature, to take any life is a violation of the Precept.

Hi Element,

The precept of no killing goes beyond not killing people. It is also about neither harming nor killing life. SN 55.7 explains how to practice and understood the precepts, included the one about "Not Harming Life".

Not killing, includes not killing people of any sort, dictators, murderes, etc... included.

I know it is hard to understand this last aspect but:

A Noble disciple reflects thus: From where the reflection that continues seems to fit just for a Noble disciple, not an ordinary person.

I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die. I desire happiness and dislike suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live... and dislike suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me.

Now, if I were to take the life of another -one who wishes lo live, who does not wishes to die, who desires happiness and dislikes suffering, that would not be desirable and agreeable to him too.

What is undesirable and disagreeable to me is undesirable and disagreeable to others, too. And here comes what I think is the issue, the core point of this teaching:

How can I inflict upon another what is undesirable and disagreeable to me? If we do not know ourselves, do not have loving kindness toward ourselves we will ever ignore what is disagreeable and undesirable to us because that lack of loving kindness in ourselves.

Having reflected thus, If we have not reflect on that, which can take some amount of time... our behaviour will not change substantially.

...he himself refrains from harming life, exhorts others to refrain from harming life, and speaks in praise of refraining from harming life. Thus, his bodily conduct is purified in three respects.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

Now I will tell you the layman's duty.

Pāṇaṃ na hane na ca ghātayeyya, na cānujaññā hanataṃ paresaṃ;
Sabbesu bhūtesu nidhāya daṇḍaṃ, ye thāvarā ye ca tasā santi loke

He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill.
Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.

Dhammika Sutta http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

As far as killing other beings to eat them is concerned, the Buddha mentioned meat in his advice to lay practitioners - AN 5.177 - 'Wrong Livelihood.' This means that in a completely Buddhist society, there wouldn't be anyone selling the meat of other sentient beings from slaughterhouses or shops.


"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....177.than.html
http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

Fun Fact: In the Vinaya, killing a human being is a parajika offense, and killing an animal is a pacittiya offense - the same as damaging a plant.

hi Dave Rupa

A parajika offense results in expulsion from the community of monks and also possibly a prison sentence

A pacittiya offense is still an offense. A pacittiya remains indicative of various degrees of unwholesome, cruel, insensitive and/or harmful behaviour (however gross or subtle)

For example, is hunting & killing animals for sport regarded as "fun" according to Buddha-Dhamma?

Regards

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

Indeed! Here are some other offenses which rank equivalently to killing an animal:

18. Should any bhikkhu sit or lie down on a bed or bench with detachable legs on an (unplanked) loft in a dwelling belonging to the Community, it is to be confessed.
52. Tickling with the fingers is to be confessed.


So:

1. Killing a human
2. Killing an insect

They are both examples of a violation of the precept, but as we can see from the Vinaya, it is not the case that a violation of the first precept and another violation of the first precept are to be necessarily considered equivalent. It may be worth noting, depending on the context.

sure

because the karmic fruit is of differing degree or quantity (but still equivalent in quality)

it is like a grain of salt vs a container of salt

whether a grain or container, the quality of the salt remains salty

to kill a mosquito is a trifling karmic act (due to the psychological basis of the lawfulness of karma)

but killing a mosquito is still an act inhibiting one's highest spiritual potential

in killing a mosquito remains fear, aversion and a lack of compassion

regards

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

Again, not necessarily, because I think we must agree that pursuing an insect with a flyswatter is a certain degree of difference from a reflexive scratch at a minor skin irritation which turns out to have been an insect. That intention is very important.

So intention will be important here. Intending to kill an insect and accidentally killing an insect is the example, which must be obvious to everyone.

Intending to kill a human being, of course, is a degree of intention far removed from that intention to swat a bug, though of course they are both violations of the first precept. But accidentally killing an insect due to a minor itch which turns out to have been a gnat, for example - I think we must agree this does not violate the precept, yes?

daverupa

Many thanks for mentioning a plant.

I have taken the not killing to include plants. I have got to be careful here because I eat plants. What I do not do is harm plants for the sake of it, i.e. pulling leaves and flowers from plants.

Plants are living things. They breathe.

I know the argument about cutting grass and pruning plants. I don't do them to harm a plant but allow it to grow stronger again.

By including all living things from a blade of grass to human beings I have enhanced/added to my interpretation of the first precept.

Peace

Gerry

Interestingly, the Buddha only prescribed the Rains retreat after the populace complained that the traveling bhikkhus harmed plant life; so, if the plant life was being harmed prior to the Rains retreat, something we must assume the Buddha noticed, why did he not lay down a rule earlier? I wonder if it is because these rules are minor ones, laid down out of compassion for the cultural milieu and not because of any inherent unwholesomeness.

hi Dave

The thread is about human killing vs other killing rather than about intention

For example, the different kinds of killing in the Vinaya are intentional killing

Non-intentional killing does not fall within the Vinaya or precepts

Regards

Element http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

hi Gerry

the Vinaya adds that plants are also homes for living beings (such as insects, birds, small animals, koala bears, etc)

regards

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

Object. The Pali term for living plant — bhūtagāma — literally means the home of a being. This rule is justified, it says, in that the etiquette of a contemplative precludes doing harm to the abodes of living beings.

Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Living Plant Chapter

The taking of a life. The first Precept states One shall not kill.I beleive ,that taking a life wether it be human,sentient,is definitively against the precept.I let a mosquito take what he has to take,spiders are very usefull insects.Never forget that some karmas are transfered into the animal realm.Another reason for not killing sentient beings.A life is a life is alife.A killer will create karma,that shall follow him.

loong the learner