Virtual Dhamma-Vinaya Vihara

Vihara => Open Vihara - [Offenes Vihara] => Topic started by: Danilo on March 21, 2020, 06:02:11 AM

Title: Dealing with vegetal life in line with the Dhamma
Post by: Danilo on March 21, 2020, 06:02:11 AM
Bhante Johann, I saw that what was presented in the topic "Giving shelter, shadow, by own effort" (http://forum.sangham.net/index.php?topic=9793.0) is quite similar to the case of the monastic whom consented to clear the field to build huts, which I mentioned in "Homeless life under the Triple Jewels" (http://forum.sangham.net/index.php?topic=9723.msg22147#msg22147). Isn't the action of get rid of the grass, akusala? Why Bhante, apparently, didn't see any problem in it?
Title: Re: Dealing with vegetal life in line with the Dhamma
Post by: Johann on April 21, 2020, 02:26:51 AM
Maybe Nyom understood some wrong or Atmas bad english may have cause to this "desire to remove grass" and possible even "order or do it by oneself " would be seen as not akusala by my Person, Nyom Danilo . (Btw. hopefully not to unpleasing for Nyom, the late replay on his question).

The intention to harm and destry life is always akusala. The Idea of gras is not life strong wrong observation, the rejectiong of the perception of gras-devas, living in/on gras, is also wrong view. To even follow ones intent to destry life by word (signs) or body adds also the break of Sila of Asketics living on alms of the land and if the object faces death/destroying of it's, his live, a full transgression had been made.

Again:
- to harm plants is a break of a Vinaya rule
- to build something, having the intention to accept to destroy life, is a break of a Vinaya rule. (only is no harm is done by it, a monk is allowed to build himself what ever building)

Of cause it's not to be seen as fault if the intention to build comes from a non-Bhikkhu, or is build other where, otherwise by non-Bhikkhus.

There are times and occations when direct building by a Bhikkhu on a certain place is possible, like for example after a forest fire or a place cleared by others, on rocks, naked places... and things like if lay people desire to build or lead the way, where, how, when.. by themselves where a monks could particulary assist when question arise and say what is proper as "end-product" and encouragement to harmlessness.

Does this explain Nyom Danilo 's question and release doubt? Could my persons word be understood sufficiently? No need to shy to counterask or seek for release of doubt in regard of the ways of wise and those wishing to follow.
Title: Re: Dealing with vegetal life in line with the Dhamma
Post by: Johann on April 21, 2020, 03:20:48 AM
Maybe to be more clear anyhow: "consented to clear" is not done by not giving an answer or order (to a certain place or how it is done).

"I want to give bamboo trees. Where should I plant them?" An answer "right here", pointing on a place where plants need to be distroyed and mark it, would would be very critical for a Bhikkhu. An answer: "this are is good" pointing on a larger area, is no problem. No "real" answer like: "where ever Nyom feels fine" not a little consents, agrement of destruction at all. Plants could be replanted to do not destroy or proper particular places chosen... similar with bildings.

Such as a comment by a Bhikkhu: "Oh, there are plants (gras)... (not possible to build for me), without the intent to move others to act for him for destruction, and a lay person, hearing that, thinks "what if I clear the are for the monk and cts on it (as another example), is also not even mental agree with destruction.

Yet, Vinaya, of cource is not something that protects of akusala kamma and when a Bhikkhu speaks in ways wish can not be seen as encouragement to destroy, such does not violate his precepts. So this "magic formulars" we had already talked about, the sublime Buddha gave, can be used of course, again, akusala".

To use the wrong words here in this regard, even if intention is kusala and no idea of approve of destruction behind, can break the formal Bhikkhu rules.

For example "I wish there would be no gras" in presents of lay people (incl. novices as well) while actually already have abound the idea of building ther because causing harm of plants, and people go on on that and clear the are, that would be a violation through not using the right words "magic formular" would be a kusala example that nevertheless violates the rules of behavior (speech) of the Bhikkhus.

Like to say "I wish this person would not exist..", for example. Can mean alot and general assumed as a "shout after someone, -what, to kill him while an other expression would not easy lead to such assuming.

So generally, if seeing a situatin where consenting of monks to destroy life could be possible asumed: such is not sure a break of his rules unless not heared his words (coursed others to destruct by taking on them) and not sure akusala even if heared "wrong words". Neither his perception of living being, nor his actual intention, nor his possible approves, disapproves, can be seen by others.

Again. Evenvery good monks happen to do wrong according the convention of the Vinaya and to still akusala actions by thoughts, speech... till reaching the state of Arahatshipp. And even an Arahat could violate the Vinaya-rules, not knowing a particalar convention of deeds by speech and body.

So easy for an uninstructed lay person, even not knowing all, to assume even an Arahat to consents, approves, the destruction of plante life.

Lay people know that Noble Ones do not destro or harm plant-life, even a seed. Lay people know possible that a particular formular lies in the convetion of by the Buddha allowed way of speech speaking on others then Dhamma.
Title: Re: Dealing with vegetal life in line with the Dhamma
Post by: Danilo on April 22, 2020, 10:24:59 AM
Good to see that Bhante is doing well.  _/\_

I did grasp nearly all in the posts regarding the matter of vegetal life, Bhante. But the following point is the reason I rose this question and I still didn't understand.

this "desire to remove grass" and possible even "order or do it by oneself " would be seen as not akusala by my Person,

When the grass is uprooted, it doesn't dies? I don't understand why this is not akusala.
Title: Re: Dealing with vegetal life in line with the Dhamma
Post by: Johann on April 22, 2020, 11:27:12 AM
Nyom Danilo . Harming and destruction of living beings: approve of it, joy with it (mental) encouraging to it, giving sign, order, speak to move others to (verbal); doing it bodily by oneself, all of that is akusala.

So maybe just bad spoken or misunderstood. A bad to understand sentence, cuting "cause to" away. This idea, such would be not akusala, is wrong. What ever intentional destruction of what is know, recogniced as living being, is wrong. The Buddha therefore, and his instructed disciples therefore abstain from harm and destruction of seeds, plants, what ever is perceiveable as living.
Title: Re: Dealing with vegetal life in line with the Dhamma
Post by: Danilo on April 23, 2020, 05:01:41 AM
Then, is correct to assume that what was done in the "Giving shelter, shadow, by own effort" topic were dark kamma (uprooting the grass) along with bright kamma (build/giving shelter)?
Title: Re: Dealing with vegetal life in line with the Dhamma
Post by: Johann on April 23, 2020, 06:34:06 PM
That is something one can hardly see without knowing mind of others. As far as seen, no. Maybe some mixed, being taught by monks (as usual), plants to cut does not matter for no-Bhikkhus. In how far the merit maker might have been aware of animals in the soil, and in this case (4 month no rain), very, very less, is another. As for the young man, as well the young girl, Nyom can be sure that pure white kamma was long time present. But may Nyom ask them personally to be more sure.

As for Sila, to self-honest check, if later remorse arises, the are some factors helpful when right used. Intention/acceptance to kill, object much be (perceived) as alive, one puts an effort and acts (by word/sign or body), the being finds death on it. If a factor misses, there is no break. As for kamma it incl. mind where only intention or acceptance is enought for the kamma of killing.

So how many factors are sure for Nyom Danilo here?

As for the involvement of Bhante... my person did not observed, not a fan of risky liking to assist. Usually monks are taught, by certain commentaries, to be not so shy in this regard. Maybe Nyom Cheav Villa can ask Bhante Indannano personally, that there is Upasaka Danilo from Brazil, who thinks the act of merits (planting bamboo, and assist) was dark kamma, and possible the assistance of Bhante a break of precepts.

Again: So how many factors are sure for Nyom Danilo here?

But much importand here, and even since a longer such could be the case (maybe used to "over-critical" and perfection outward seeking), Nyom would make a lot of bad kamma (best black and white, if on "fighue out for a good) because he might focuses on finding faults and leaves out oppotunities, since some time still, to use share of merits (first) for rejoice on it (what can be perceived as such, at least verbal), to giving always the good parts first line. That would help him more, or to train speech to relativat issues, at least (so not to, maybe "hurt" unrightly). May Nyom investigate that deeply, and keep in mind that if discreditate improper a Noble fellow, that such block his own further walk on as well, as urge to such "good mind keeping).

Maybe he likes to take part here a little as well, some a little guided and documented at the Ashram Thmo Duk (http://forum.sangham.net/index.php?topic=2375.msg22432#msg22432), since very practical on topic here. Maybe Atma can give a talk on it as well the next days.

Title: Re: Dealing with vegetal life in line with the Dhamma
Post by: Johann on May 08, 2020, 06:40:14 AM
With plants it's actually the same like with everything else: with uphold metta, right view. What ever isn't based on it, if good, just a "pointless" ritual, not open up deep to the source, root of suffering, Nyom Danilo .

One turns from usuall wrong view:

There is the case where a certain person is covetous. He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made impure in three ways by mental action.


to right view, metta:

There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action.

Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta: To Cunda the Silversmith (https://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than_en.html#mind)


With uphold right view, with metta for all incl. first for oneself, one isn't able to act harmful toward other life knowingly, does not act harmful.