6 Answers

  1. The fact is that when a person is sincerely focused on Buddhism, using various kinds of practices, meditations and starting from the “Four Noble Truths” (this is something like a fulcrum in understanding the teaching itself), focusing either on good deeds or on worshipping the Buddha, of course, he is not devoid of human experiences and reasoning. Dak, here is reasoning a Buddhist will come to the opinion (if of course it is a true Buddhist), according to the 4th truth: “The path that leads to getting rid of dukkha “(suffering), breaking the commandment not to kill, will not lead him to Nirvana in any way, so a true Buddhist will not kill! And if you did, then you are no longer a Buddhist and have never been one, because you did not understand the meaning of this teaching. The evil done by man (explicit), moves very far away from enlightenment – from the main path of the Buddhist, and only adds dukka, i.e. suffering, anxiety, etc. Therefore, it is precisely for killing a Buddhist that it can not be all the same, you can not even kill insects, as this can spoil karma and prevent a worthy rebirth. “

    This is as far as the question itself is concerned.


    The Buddha claimed that his teaching was not a divine revelation, but was received by him through meditative contemplation of his own spirit and all things. A teaching is not a dogma, and the results depend on the individual.

    The Buddha pointed out that one should accept his teaching only by testing it through one's own experience: “Do not accept my teaching simply out of faith or out of respect for me. Just as the merchant in the bazaar checks gold when he buys it: heats it, melts it, cuts it — to make sure of its authenticity, so also check my teaching, and only when you are convinced of its truth do you accept it!”

    p.s. I myself am an Orthodox Christian and I do not believe in the teachings of the Buddha for a single gram, from my purely personal point of view, I consider it unnecessary and useless, harmful to the soul teaching. In Christianity, the system of self-improvement itself is much more serious and richer, it is directly related to the daily life of a person, as well as a deep meaning about the fate of the human soul after death and its connection with God.

    In order to save your soul, you don't have to go to a monastery or be a hermit; in order to purify your mind and soul from your passions, you need to have some kind of relationship with God, Who in turn helps you, enlightens you, and saves you.

  2. In Buddhism, there is no commandment: “You must not kill.” There is a principle of not causing harm. But it does allow homicides in some cases. For example, there is a story about a monk who, out of compassion for the tyrant who oppressed Buddhism, killed him. It is explained that by preventing an even greater accumulation of bad karma, the monk thus realized, and did not violate, the principle of ahimsa.
    Ahimsa is based on compassion. And it is also considered a motivator for renunciation. At first, a person renounces the attachments that bind him to Samsara out of compassion for himself, and in the advanced stages — out of compassion for others.

  3. It doesn't matter what you do, it matters how, and for what purpose. A Buddhist who has achieved enlightenment and acts from the position of the absolute can destroy all life on earth without receiving any negative consequences for himself. Another thing is that he will not kill anyone unless there is a real need for it, for the benefit of all living beings in samsara, including the slain one. But this applies only to those who have already managed to get rid of karmic fetters – all other Buddhists for killing lights in full.

  4. No, you can't. but if a person who does not kill constantly thinks what a good fellow he is that he does not kill and all tim boasts and contemptuously take revenge on those who kill he is definitely not on the right track.

  5. The entire commandment reads as follows:”I undertake not to harm any living beings.” This includes insects and all animals, not just humans. In various Hindu teachings, this vow is also added to the refusal of meat food, in Buddhism this is not considered mandatory, and there are sutras that explain that eating meat does not make a karmic accessory to murder. The vow of non-harm is not an attachment, because there is no attraction in it; rather, it is difficult to keep. About “still on it”. Some sutras describe the degree of moral decline, when beings do not even have a hint of remorse and no thoughts associated with condemning their sinful act, this is the most severe form of moral decline.

  6. There are many things that can be understood as attachment. In Buddhism, attachment is something that promotes the illusion of a permanent and unchanging personality. For example, a person might say ,” I like to eat cake.” In the Buddhist sense, this is an illusion. There is no Self that likes cake. There are five groups of elements that actually make up the illusion of the Self. It is as if we look at the cake as a self-existent object, while the cake is a mixture of sponge cake, cream, chocolate, sugar and a cherry on top. Similarly, the Self is a mixture of: 1. material elements, 2. elements of perception, 3. elements of emotional response, 4. elements that make up the will, 5. elements of knowledge/experience.

    With the cake, everything is clear. But what if the person says: “I hate you”? From the Buddhist point of view, such a person is twice wrong. First, there is no Self that hates. Second, there is no Self to hate. Hatred, greed, and delusion are the three causes of anxiety that come with illusion.

    If we examine the Buddhist vow of non-harming beings (ahimsa) to see if such behavior leads to illusions, we will find no reason to create illusions. Non-harming does not require treating other beings as unchanging, permanent individuals. Imagine that you are driving a car. There are traffic rules that you follow to avoid harming yourself and others. You don't care who the drivers of oncoming cars are: men, women, elderly, young, rich, poor, whether they like cakes or not. You simply do not drive into the oncoming lane, so as not to harm any other people's cars and your own. This is a vivid example of ahimsa — non-harm. And vice versa, if you were cut off by another driver and you think in anger: “What an unintelligent person! Let me catch up with you and take revenge! ” A person who was previously free becomes attached to the object of hatred, goes after it and produces some adverse consequences. This is a vivid example of the appearance of the illusion of self-existence, which leads to the occurrence of life accidents.

    Buddhists cannot kill with indifference, because Buddhists do not deny the existence of multiple consciousnesses. Consciousness is not equal to the Self, because it is an impersonal process. Each stream of consciousness is at its own stage of development. Killing often leads to an interruption, slowing down the development of the creature. Therefore, there will be adverse consequences that distance both the victim and the murderer from the Buddhist goal of enlightenment. Manslaughter is another matter. When a person is simply a physical cause of harm due to existing material circumstances. If a person draws the right conclusions from their behavior, then it is considered that negative consequences do not arise.

    So, no-not doing harm is not attachment. And Buddhists try not to kill anyone. If you see people posing as monks, while being aggressive or killing creatures, you can be sure that these people are not advanced in practice, they are mistaken or simply do not know the basics of the Buddhist tradition.

Leave a Reply