7 thoughts on “All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.”

1. Found my way to this via Google, I like to pretend something is really happening when that happens.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

   Reply ↓

2. I’ve heard this quote as “all beings tremble at violence” ect. was the Buddha pro vegetarian. Did he ever directly say anything about not killing animals.

   Also I checked you list and perhaps I missed it but this is another quote that people attribute to the Buddha: “It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.”

   Reply ↓

   • I wrote a whole book on the question of Buddhism and vegetarianism. The Buddha was pro not-killing animals. He said things like “Do not kill, or cause to kill, or approve of others killing.” But he wasn’t vegetarian because he lived by begging in a culture where almost everyone ate meat. India was very different then — even the Brahmins ate beef. It was hard to be a vegetarian, to the point that vegetarianism was regarded as being an ascetic practice (and that’s compared to standard non-ascetic practices like only eating before midday, shaving your head, not owning possessions beyond the monastic requisites, etc.). Monks were forbidden to eat meat if they even suspected that an animal had been killed specially for them. This was to ensure that their presence wasn’t encouraging “animal sacrifice” with householders slaughtering animals when they knew monks were coming.

     Basically, as beggars the monks weren’t in a position to practice vegetarianism — but householders were. Teachings like “Do not kill, or cause to kill, or approve of others killing” would basically rule out eating meat if you’re a householder. India became vegetarian quite quickly, and I assume that Buddhist householders had much to do with this.

     Thanks for flagging “It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.” I’ll write that one up soon.

     Reply ↓

     • “Teachings like ‘Do not kill, or cause to kill, or approve of others killing’ would basically rule out eating meat…”

       Wouldn’t this teaching, if taken to be absolute, rule out eating plants as well? Plants are no less alive than animals. Why is it okay to kill a carrot or a potato for food but not a fish or a chicken? What about mushrooms, which are technically closer to animals than they are to plants, genetically speaking? Where do we draw the line? And whose place is it to decide this? (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

       I’m not asking these questions to be difficult. I’m asking because this is a subject I actually spend a lot of time thinking about. I care very much about all living beings, and never want to cause anyone–human, animal, plant, or otherwise–to suffer if I can help it. But after being vegetarian, and then vegan, and spending a lot of time observing nature as well as growing my own vegetables, I eventually reached the conclusion that in this physical reality all life feeds on other life. That’s just the way it works. It’s impossible to avoid killing. Even if you were to give up eating altogether, in an effort to stop killing, you would still inevitably kill microorganisms just by walking, bathing, breathing, etc.

       I think the Buddha, in his infinite Wisdom, likely recognized this fact of life as well, and was probably talking mainly about people killing each other or animals needlessly, as in war, crime, violence, animal and human sacrifice, sport hunting, etc…

       I think it’s important to recognize that regardless of whether you’re eating a plant, a fungus, or an animal, it was once alive just the same. I think the important thing is to value this life and be sorry but also thankful that it ended so that yours could continue…

       What do you think, Bodhipaksa?

       Reply ↓

       • When the abuddha talked about killing or not killing it was in reference to “breathing things,” and so plants were excluded. So yes, plants are alive, but they’re not, as far as we know, capable of feeling pain.

         Reply ↓

         • Plant respiration (i.e. breathing) is a well known process. I would think plants definitely fall under the category of “breathing things”. In fact, if plants didn’t breathe, neither could we, as they exhale what we inhale and vice versa.

           It’s also possible that plants are more alive and similar to animals in their ability to sense than most people realize.

           http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz

           http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2012/02/the-secrets-plants-keep-was-backster-right-after-all/

           I do realize that plants don’t have a brain or central nervous system in the way that animals do, but I don’t think that necessarily means they don’t have something analogous to thoughts and sensations. I don’t think we should rule out the possibility of plant sentience just because it’s not within our current understanding. Plants are fascinating and complex living organisms about which we have much to learn…

           My main point is that we should recognize that everything is alive and give reverence accordingly. I think the fact of whether one chooses to eat meat or not is less important than whether one eats whatever they eat consciously or not.

           It’s also extremely important for people to be conscious of the source of their food. For example, buying conventionally-grown vegetables, I’ve come to realize, is inherently more ‘violent’ and harmful to the earth and its creatures than, say, hunting animals for one’s food, because of how devastating factory-farming is to the environment…

         • We may be talking at cross-purposes. I was explaining what the Buddha meant when he said we should not kill or harm “breathing things.” He didn’t know about plant respiration. Plants, in a Buddhist context, are not considered as sentient beings capable of feeling pain.

           The Buddha also recognized that plants should not be harmed unnecessarily. They are living things, and also the impulses we have to destroy unnecessarily are themselves harmful and are to be eradicated. So not only should we not kill animals, we shouldn’t idly destroy plant life.

           We can probably never know whether a plant has sentience. It strikes me as unlikely, however. The “behavior” they exhibit can be explained purely by chemical and mechanical processes.

           In any event, being vegetarian means eating killing fewer plants, not more, since animals are basically made up of concentrated plants. Refraining from eating meat (or milk and eggs) results in an exponential decrease in the number of plants killed. If meat-eaters are truly concerned about plants being killed (which I doubt — I think this is just a dishonest argument) then they should become vegan or vegetarian, at least.