Here we must consider the intention to kill or to help the patient.
1 Like
What about deworm pills?
If we have a dog infested with parasitic worms, and we had to use deform drugs to save the dog…
If we leave it alone, surely the dog will die…
If we save the dog, it means we have to kill those parasitic worms…
Oh the dilemma, I will still save the doggy. But that would mean I perform the act of killing…
1 Like
Hard dilemma!
1 Like
This kind of medicine only paralyze the worms. Being paralyzed they do not cling to the surface of the intestines. Not clinging they can be flushed by the natural movement of the intestines.
1 Like
The BMC 1 says…
Still, the Commentary states that if one notices even bed bug eggs while cleaning a bed, one should be careful not to damage them. Thus, “out of compassion, one’s duties are to be done carefully.” Or, in the words of the Sub-commentary: “One’s duties in looking after one’s dwelling are to be done with mindfulness well-established so that such creatures do not die.”
Been there, done that. Pa-Auk Mawlamyine has many bed bugs. We used to have to clean the meditation cushions and we would have a jar to collect the eggs. Eventually the kappiyas fixed the problem, but I heard it came back.
Ajahn Thanissaro explains that if it is too small to be seen with the naked eye then it is okay. However, I might question that with a newly fertilized human egg which would be pārājika if intentionally killed.
A big problem arises with water that has been left out over night. There might be mosquito larvae in it. Many of our kuties have old engine oil moats around the supports . This can help reduce ants from getting inside.
Algae often grows on the tiles and bricks. This is not a job for monks and (usually) only kappiyas and sāmaṇera do this.
Intention plays a big role. That is mentioned in the story of cakkhupāla and why the first verse of the Dhp was brought about.
1 Like
I heard the same from a sermon of a Sinhalese lay Dhamma preacher. But he doesn’t say intentional killing is okay, rather says ignoring is ok.
He shows the incident of venerable Anuruddha as the proof for it and also he uses this incident to prove the Vinaya as something only in the area of the Buddhas.
This ignoring boundary seems practical (not for intentional killing), but it is better if there is a way to be confident in such a decision using textual evidences
I guess this is typing mistake and bhante had intended to write ‘Pacittiya’.
1 Like
Not a typo but no enough information to express my intention. I have since edited and qualified it with “human” to say:
“fertilized human egg”
1 Like
I just had a look, because I remembered that a human egg can be seen. I fact checked it just now here:
Egg cell fact #1: The egg is one of the biggest cells in the body.
Egg are larger than any other cell in the human body, at about 100 microns (or millionths of a meter) in diameter, about the same as a strand of hair. That means you could, in theory, see an egg cell with the naked eye. The fact is that egg cells are about 4 times the size of skin cells—and about 20 times the size of sperm!
2 Likes
Better define killing according to Buddhism so they would not define killing in other beliefs to bring them into Buddhist context.
The monks are prohibited from picking plant leaf from a living tree, breaking plant branch, and pulling out grass. The Buddha acknowledges plants have jiva/life force. Laypeople are not prohibited, because plants do not have consciousness although they are alive. Plants are not sentient.
As sentient life begins at foetal stage, ending the development of a foetus is killing a sentient being.
2 Likes
Yes, killing as in killing of a sentient being in as would be defined in the by the first precept. Not the scientific definition of living (in which sperm counts as living) or any other definition, although in that rule i think the Buddha simply says that people in that day regarded plants as having life force, not that they were actually living. Kinda similar to how other cultural things became vinaya rules, like not eating certain types of meat.
1 Like
Plants are alive, living and breathing, some are even killing for food. Jiva is the keyword. In this context, jiva is life (vital principle). Lifeform/living thing is a special construct different from random state of nonliving things. We as lifeform can eat living things (plants and animal), but we cannot eat nonliving things like soil, stone, etc. To certain extent, plants are not conscious.
Some plants are conscious just like some fungus are conscious. These plants are like fungus rather than like animal. I understand this is debatable.
Jiva meaning in Theravada: Jiva, Jīva, Jīvā: 44 definitions
life, vital principle, individual soul. ‘Soul (life) and body are identical’ and ‘Soul and body are different’, these two frequently quoted wrong views fall under the 2 kinds of personality-belief (sakkāya-ditthi; s. ditthi), i.e. the first one under the annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi) and the second under the eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi).“Verily, if one holds the view that the soul (life) is identical with the body, in that case a holy life is not possible; or if one holds the view that the soul (life) is something quite different, also in that case a holy life is impossible. Both these extremes the Perfect One has avoided and shown the Middle Doctrine, which says: ‘On ignorance depend the karma-formations, on the karma-formations depends consciousness’, etc.” (S. XII. 35).
2 Likes
If this was true, than wouldnt soil/earth also be living in the same way? According to the vinaya rule literally right before the one on not killing plants the Buddha says people regard the “earth”/soil as having jiva as well. and therefore monks should not dig holes in the ground.
“How can those monks at Āḷavī dig the earth and have it dug?” …
“kathañhi nāma āḷavakā bhikkhū pathaviṁ khaṇissantipi khaṇāpessantipī”ti …pe…
“Is it true, monks, that you do this?”
“saccaṁ kira tumhe, bhikkhave, pathaviṁ khaṇathapi khaṇāpethapī”ti?“It’s true, Sir.”
“Saccaṁ, bhagavā”ti.The Buddha rebuked them …
Vigarahi buddho bhagavā …pe…
“Foolish men, how can you do this?
kathañhi nāma tumhe, moghapurisā, pathaviṁ khaṇissathapi khaṇāpessathapi.
People regard the earth as conscious.
Jīvasaññino hi, moghapurisā, manussā pathaviyā.
1 Like
Nonliving things are not edible by mankind. We drink water, breathe air, but not eating nonliving things.
Are they conscious though!
Nonliving things have no jiva/lifeforce. They don’t eat, breathe, drink and do activities.
No, they are not alive.
1 Like
But then neither are plants?
no
1 Like
What is the PARAMATTHA of the “life” you mentioned, as you believe? Nama or Rupa?
Nama (4 Khandas) = 52 Cetasikas
Rupa (1 Khanda) = 28 Rupas
Which is the PARAMATTHA of this “consciousness”, as you believe?
Are you saying that plants have some of the Cetasikas but not all 52? (or some Namakkhandas but not all 4)
According to the Abhidhamma, Ahara-rupa (Oja-rupa/ Nutriment-rupa/ Food-materiality) is the element of essential nutriment that chiefly nourishes or promotes the growth of material qualities of beings.
It is one of the 8 Avinibbhoga-rupas (8 Inseperable-rupas) and included in each and every Rupa-kalapa (material clusters) in the World.
(I remember venerable Maggavihari in a video lecture described about a modern man who ate an aero-plane little by little for some weeks or months, without eating other food. He gave this as an example to show that Ahara-rupa is included in any Rupa. But I don’t know what happened.)
As you believe, do plants “eat, breathe, drink and do activities” as animals and humans do?
How do you define “eating, breathing, drinking and doing activities”?
If one says that plants do activities with intention, then he has to answer to the following question.
Intention is a Cetasika called Cetana and Cetana is Kamma. Do plants think or commit kamma?
1 Like
Paramattha Dhamma are four: Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana.
Jiva is formation of rupa and nama - i.e. life, biological state.
Human is satta (being). The cells are alive or having jiva (life principles). Human (satta) has nama (citta and cetasika). Plants are not satta, but are alive. Human body is alive too. Citta and cetasika are added to human, not to plants. Both humans and plants are alive (i.e. having jiva - life force or life principles). T
Also consider - Life is unicellular and multicellular.
Human, for example, is multicellular. While a human is alive, the vital organs are alive and functional, and the cells are alive and working for the functions. Sure, human is alive. But what makes the organs alive, and what makes the cells alive? For example, immune cells are working independently and will recognize the bacteria and viruses and try to kill them. The reason is they are alive and can react. They seem to have consciousness (vinnana, vedana and sanna). As much as I can say is jiva is in the cells, in human body.
That is what I can say. I need to read the explanation in the Pitaka or books. You can get explanation from a learn Buddhist monk, or someone who can access the books.
Vinnana is consciousness.
The leaves and branches of plants seem to interact with gravity, water source, nutrients, and sunlight. That reaction is similar to early foetal stage, in which umbilical cord comes out like a root to attach to placenta. This stage is similar to plants. But human foetus grow further to become independent. Plants remain attached to earth all lifetime however so they are alive but not awake I should say. That much I understand about life/jiva. Read about the five niyama.
I don’t think plants have intention. But plants that intentionally capture the insects could have intention. Then should we say umbilical cord has intention? Roots have intention? I don’t think so.
Jiva usesage
Right livelihood (Samma ajiva) is one of the Eight Noble Path.
Biological processes ဇီဝဖြစ်စဉ်: English translation, definition, meaning, synonyms, antonyms, examples | Myanmar (Burmese) - English Translator | OpenTran
1 Like
Jivita rupa/ jivitindriya (life faculty) is considered only to consist in Sattas and not in plants (according to Abhidhamma).
Since the Abhidhamma explanation goes against it, I think such carnivorous plants have some other kind of unintentional process.
1 Like
I wish you would provide a link to that Abhidhamma text so I would be able to read it. In my opinion, plants have jiva and jiva process. But they don’t have citta (such as bhavanga citta) as explained by the Buddha. [Here we are not considering Mahayanist views.]
See page 60 Chapter Six: Buddhist Ethical Attitude toward Natural World and Human Life
The Buddha is described as having avoided harm to seed and plant life, and there are monastic rules against harming trees and plants
Fundamentals of Buddhism Four Lectures by Nyanatiloka Mahathera
We may rightly state that the Buddhist doctrine of kamma and rebirth offers the only plausible explanation for all the variations and dissimilarities in nature. From the apple seed only an apple tree may come, no mango tree; from a mango seed only a mango tree, no apple tree. Just so, all animate things, as man, animal, etc., probably even plants, nay even crystals, must of necessity be manifestations or objectifications of some specific kind of subconscious impulse or will for life. Buddhism says nothing on the last-mentioned points; it simply states that all vegetable life belongs to the germinal order, or bija-niyama.
Abhidhamma in Daily life
I agree with this statement:
A plant is not ‘born’ because a plant cannot perform good and bad deeds; it has no kamma that could cause its birth.
It is the way of plant. That is so because plants have no citta.
Google to find more
1 Like
an old post by ven. Dhammanando
The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed.
"Now a certain Alavi bhikkhu was chopping down a tree. The devata living in the tree said to the bhikkhu, ‘Sir, do not chop down my dwelling to build a dwelling for yourself.’ The bhikkhu, paying no attention, continued chopping and injured the arm of the devata’s child. The devata thought: ‘What if I were to kill this bhikkhu right here?’ Then another thought occurred to her: ‘But no, that wouldn’t be proper. What if I were to inform the Blessed One of this matter?’ So she went to the Blessed One and on arrival informed him of what had happened.
"‘Very good, devata. It’s very good that you didn’t kill the bhikkhu. If you had, you would have produced much demerit for yourself. Now go, devata. Over there is a vacant tree. Go into it.’ (The Commentary adds here that the tree, being in the Jetavana Monastery, was one of the choicest pieces of devata real estate in those days. Other devas coming to pay their respects to the Buddha also made a point of paying their respects to the devata living in this tree. At any rate:)
“People were offended and annoyed and spread it about, ‘How can these Sakyan contemplatives cut down trees and have them cut down? They are destroying one-facultied life.’”
This is another offense with the four factors of object, effort, perception, and intention.
Object. The Pali term for living plant — bhutagama — literally means the home of a being. This the Sub-commentary explains by saying that devatas may take up residence in plants standing in place by means of a longing on which their consciousness fastens (at the end of their previous lives) as in a dream. This rule is justified, it says, in that the etiquette of a contemplative precludes doing harm to the abodes of living beings. As the origin story shows, though, the reason this rule was laid down in the first place was to prevent bhikkhus from offending people who held to the animist belief that regarded plants as one-facultied life having the sense of touch.
The Vibhanga defines bhutagama as vegetation arising from any of five sources:
- from bulbs, rhizomes, or tubers (e.g., potatoes, tulips),
- from cuttings or stakes (e.g., willows, rose bushes),
- from joints (e.g., sugar cane, bamboo),
- from runners (e.g., strawberries, couch grass), or
- from seeds (e.g., corn, beans).
According to the Commentary, a whole plant or part of one that has been removed from its original place is no longer classed as bhutagama. If it is capable of growing again if placed in the ground, it is classed as bijagama, which means “home of a plant.” When a seed is sown, it is regarded as bijagama until the first shoot turns a fresh green color, and the first leaf appears. After that it is regarded as bhutagama.
In line with this criterion, the Commentary classifies as bijagama such lower forms of plant life as mushrooms that still have their spores, fungi, lichens without leaves, and moulds, in that they do not pass through a fresh green stage, have no discernible leaves, and yet are capable of regeneration. Mushrooms that have lost their spores, and parts of any plants that have been removed from place and will not grow, or that have been cooked or otherwise damaged to the point where they are incapable of generation, are not grounds for an offense under this rule.
The Commentary states further that to damage bijagama entails a dukkata. The Vibhanga makes no mention of this point, but the Commentary cites as its justification a passage that occurs in a number of suttas (D.1, D.2, etc.) saying that bhikkhus refrain from harming both bhutagama and bijagama. The Mahavagga and Cullavagga give partial justification to the Commentary’s assertion in two passages, dealing with bhikkhus eating fruit, which we will discuss below. The Jain ascetics follow similar observances, which suggests that both the Buddhists and the Jains adopted this point from the ancient Indian ascetics who predated both religions.
Furthermore, according to the Commentary, there are certain kinds of plants that do not count either as bhutagama or bijagama under this rule, and to damage them entails no offense. To justify this point it quotes a passage from the Cullavagga (VIII.1.2): “If a varnished wall…(or) finished floor has spots of mould (%), it is to be wiped off with a moistened cloth that has been wrung out.” The Commentary extends the Canon’s instructions here to cover not only mould on walls but also other lower forms of plant life — such as algae on the inside of water jars, fungus on toothbrushes, and mould on food — that would count as filth if they were allowed to continue growing.
Effort. According to the Vibhanga, the term damaging includes such actions as cutting, breaking, picking, burning, and cooking. The Commentary defines the term as “dealing with a plant as one likes by cutting it, breaking it, and so on.” Although the word “dealing with,” paribhunjati, literally means “making use of,” the Commentary’s illustrations of what this covers include even such things as shaking a tree limb to get the dry leaves to fall off so that one can sweep them up. Thus, it says, damaging would include picking flowers or leaves, uprooting a plant, engraving one’s initials in a tree trunk, etc. Since no exception is made for doing such things with “benevolent” intentions towards the plant, pruning would be included as well. Given the catch-all nature of the Commentary’s definition, using herbicides to kill plants would also come under the term “damaging.”
Plants growing in water, such as water hyacinths, whose roots do not extend to the earth beneath the water, have the water as their base. To remove them from the water is to damage them, although there is no offense in moving them around in the water. To move them from one body of water to another without incurring a penalty, one may take them together with some of the water in which they originally lived and place them together with that water into the new body of water.
Plants such as mistletoe, orchids, and bird vine that grow on trees have the tree as their base. To remove them from the tree is to damage them and so entails a pacittiya.
Perception. If one damages a living plant (%) perceiving it to be something else — say, a dead plant — there is no offense. If one damages a plant in doubt as to whether it is living or dead, then regardless of what it actually is, the offense is a dukkata.
Intention is discussed in detail under the non-offenses, below.
Making Fruit Allowable. Since fruit seeds are bijagama, the question arises as to how bhikkhus should go about eating fruit. The Commentary to this rule discusses in detail two passages, one each in the Mahavagga (VI. 21) and the Cullavagga (V.5.2), dealing with precisely this question. The Cullavagga passage reads, “I allow you, bhikkhus, to consume fruit that has been made allowable for contemplatives in any of five ways: if it is damaged by fire, by a knife, by a nail, if it is seedless, and the fifth is if the seeds are discharged.” The Mahavagga passage reads, “Now at that time there was a great quantity of fruit at Savatthi, but there was no one to make it allowable… (The Buddha said,) 'I allow you, bhikkhus, to consume fruit that is seedless or whose seeds are discharged, (even if) it has not been made allowable.”
First, to summarize the commentaries’ discussion of seedless fruit and fruit whose seeds have been discharged: According to the Commentary to the Mahavagga, “seedless fruit” includes fruit whose seeds are too immature to grow. As for fruit whose seeds have been discharged, the Sub-commentary states that this means, “Fruit, such as mangoes or jackfruit, which it is possible to eat having removed the seeds and separating them entirely (from the flesh).”
The question sometimes arises as to whether bhikkhus may remove the seeds themselves before eating fruit of this sort, or whether an unordained person has to remove them first, but given the context of the Mahavagga passage and the wording of the Sub-commentary’s explanation, it seems clear that the bhikkhus themselves may discharge the seeds before or while eating the fruit. As the Commentary notes, both these kinds of fruit are allowable in and of themselves, and need not go through any other procedure to make them allowable.
Other kinds of fruit, though, such as those with numerous seeds (such as tomatoes and blackberries) or whose seeds would be difficult to remove undamaged (such as grapes) must be damaged by fire, a knife, or a fingernail before a bhikkhu may eat them. The Commentary’s description of how to do this shows that the damaging need only be symbolic: An unordained person draws a hot object or a knife across the skin of the fruit, or pokes it with a fingernail, saying “allowable” (kappiyam) either while doing the damaging or immediately afterward. The Sub-commentary notes that the word for “allowable” may be stated in any language.
If a heap of fruit, such as grapes, is brought to a bhikkhu, he should say, “Make it allowable,” (Kappiyam karohi,) either to the donor or to any other unordained person who knows how. The unordained person need only make one of the grapes allowable in line with the above procedures for the entire heap to be considered allowable, although he/she should not remove the grape from the heap while doing so.
The Sub-commentary claims that the ceremony of making fruit allowable must always be performed in the presence of a bhikkhu, but the Commentary mentions this factor only in connection with this last case — making an entire heap of fruit allowable by “damaging” only one piece — and not in its basic description of how the procedure is done.
In Communities that follow the Sub-commentary, the custom is as follows: When a donor brings grapes, tomatoes, or similar fruit to a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu says, “Kappiyam karohi (Make it allowable).” The donor damages the fruit in any of the three specified ways and says, “Kappiyam bhante (It is allowable, sir),” while doing the damaging, and then presents the fruit to the bhikkhu.
In Communities that do not follow the Sub-commentary, the donor may perform the act of damaging the fruit beforehand, and simply inform the bhikkhu that the fruit has been made allowable when presenting it to him. In either case, the act of making a heap of fruit allowable by damaging only one piece must be done in the presence of a bhikkhu. And we should note again that seedless fruit or fruit whose seeds may be removed entirely from the flesh of the fruit are allowable in and of themselves, and do not have to go through any procedure before a bhikkhu may accept and eat them.
The two passages in the Mahavagga and Cullavagga that we have been discussing deal specifically only with fruit, but the Commentary extrapolates from them to say that the same conditions apply to other forms of bijagama, such as sugar cane and bean sprouts as well.
Non-offenses. There is no offense for a bhikkhu who cuts a living plant —
unknowingly — e.g., thinking it to be dead,
unthinkingly — e.g., absent-mindedly pulling grass while talking with someone, or
unintentionally — e.g., inadvertently uprooting grass while raking leaves or grabbing onto a plant for support while climbing a hill and inadvertently uprooting it.
Also, there is no penalty in telling an unordained person to make an item allowable; in asking for leaves, flowers, etc. without specifically saying which leaves or flowers are to be picked; or in indicating indirectly that, e.g., the grass needs cutting (“Look at how long the grass is”) or that a tree needs pruning (“This branch is in the way”) without expressly giving the command to cut. In other words, this is another rule where one may avoid an offense by using kappiya-vohara: “wording it right.”
The Cullavagga (V.32.1) says that if a brush fire is approaching a dwelling, one may light a counter-fire to ward it off. In doing so, one is exempt from any penalty imposed by this rule.
Also, according to the Sub-commentary to NP 6, a bhikkhu whose robes have been stolen and who cannot find any other cloth to cover himself, may pick grass and leaves to cover himself without incurring any penalty here.
Summary: Intentionally cutting, burning, or killing a living plant is a pacittiya offense.
Hi all, > For people believe, O Bhikkhus, that life dwells in
a tree. This is the key point. The belief that plants and the
earth possess one faculty (either kaayindriya or jiivitindriya) was
held by the Niga.n.thas (Jains) and acelakas (non-affiliated naked
ascetics); since these were the largest and oldest sama.na groups at
that time, their beliefs had passed into common lore and so any sama.na
worth his salt was expected to conform to them (by keeping the rains
retreat so as not to tread on growing crops, by not digging the earth
or damaging plants, and by taking various precautions when building a
hut). But nowhere does the Buddha actually concede that these beliefs
were correct and in the Vinaya commentaries they are dismissed as
“mere imagining”. Best wishes, Dhammanando
3 Likes
“Plants In Early Buddhism and the Far Eastern Idea Of Buddha Nature Of Grasses & Trees”. Lambert Schmithausen
1 Like