Subash@uh.edu (Subash S. Jayawardena) (03/02/91)
(after reading the postings regarding precepts etc. I thought of adding
my input to the s.r.e. These are related to somethings I have thought
about and not arguing for or against other postings.)
According to buddhist teachings the volition determines the results of
an action. In the case of killing, a person breaks the precept
of killing if she knows it is a living being, think of a strategy,
commit the act, and the being's life terminates by the act.
On the other hand, buddhist precepts are taken as a support for further
development of mind (concentration, insight,wisdom and ultimately
the supramundane path). Therefore, a buddhist would not only give up
killing but also try as much as possible to live with loving kindness
(or metta) towards all living beings.
When considering the noble eightfold path, it contains these precepts
as well as the other required factors for development of mind. These
factors support each other and has to act in harmony if one were to
see any progress.
One factor is right thought namely: thoughts of ahimsa (not harming
others),avyapadha (thoughts of non-hatred or metta), nekkamma (thoughts
of detachment). Then there are other two factors, which can be mapped
directly as (or directly means) precepts related to bodily action and
speech. The other factor samma ajiva, which is right livelihood, is
not directly precepts but seems more like combination of right thoughts
and the precepts of non-killing. If the meaning of right livelihood
is taken, it is more like having a job (or a livelihood) which does
not harm other living beings. This kind of livelihood allows one
to practice right thought as well as the other factors related to
the precepts. If we look at the definitions of jobs (of wrong livelihood)
as related by Bill (given in texts as well) they all have one common
denominator i.e. dealing with things that leads to harm of others,
e.g. by selling weapons to kill - seller earns livelihood and someone
else get killed because of the weapons sold. Similarly, all the other
trades, livelihoods, can be analysed. Then the basic question is:
"Am I earning money or livelihood, while causing harm or death to another?"
Thinking further about the complex world, planning, organizations etc.
"Will my effort kill others in future?". May be our exposure to the
complex world makes us think more broadly than in the ancient world.
However, own consciousness cannot be cheated.
I rather prefer to look at the summary of the right livelihood this
way than taking the commentries literaly because of the changing nature
of the world. The occupations of people change from time to time.
For example, prostitution clearly did not come under wrong livelihood
in ancient times because it did not pose any harm to any person or society
in general. But in today's world with the spread of killer or other
harmful diseases etc. and the problems involved with it one can very well
categorize some cases of it under wrong livelihood.
Now to some thought processes that may be involved in killing. Let's
look at some motivations of killing. (i) A person may kill an enemy
because of hatred. In this case directly, the mind is lead by anger.
There could be another case where a person kills another out of
sudden hatred e.g. a person honks at another on the road, the second
one pulls a gun and shoots the first. In this case also, hatred
dominates the mind. (ii) A person want to get wealth of another,
kills the wealthy. Isn't the mind dominated by greed in this case?
There may be anger as well sometimes. (iii) A person goes hunting
to find food, kill a deer or a rabbit etc. In this case, the person
does not think about consequence, or does not know how that animal
loves its own life or thinks that animal is created by a super being
for consumption. In any way, the forementioned comes due to ignorance
or not knowing properly.
All the cases coming under (i) and (ii) are clearly comprehensible
so they are categorized as injustice, anti-social etc. But the killings
under (iii) are more deceptive and cannot be clearly understood.
Furthermore, in this case people try to rationalize their action by
giving various explanations. However, if the killings similar to (iii)
are analysed in full details, the basis can be found as ignorance or not
knowing properly.