11.07.2015 Views

BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Buddhist Monastic Code 1Having made the decision means "having summoned up a reckless mind-state,'crushing' through the power of an attack." Knowingly means knowing that, "This isa living being." Consciously means being aware that one's action is depriving theanimal of life.All of this indicates that this factor is fulfilled only when one acts on a clear andconsciously made decision to deprive the animal of life. Thus, for example, if one issweeping a walk, trying carefully not to kill any insects, and yet some ants happento die, one does not commit an offense even if one knew that there was thepossibility that some might die, because one's purpose in acting was not to causetheir death.Motive, here, is irrelevant to the offense. Even the desire to kill an animal to "put itout of its misery" fulfills the factor of intention all the same.Effort. The act of taking life may take the form of any of the six types of action listedunder Pr 3:using one's own person (e.g., hitting with the hand, kicking, using a knife ora club);throwing (hurling a stone, shooting an arrow or a gun);using a stationary device (setting a trap, placing poison in food);using magical formulae;using psychic powers;commanding.Mv.V.10.10 discusses a case of this last instance, in which a depraved bhikkhu tellsa layman that he has use for a certain calf's hide, and the layman kills the calf forhim. Because the bhikkhu did not give a specific command that the calf be killed,and yet the Buddha said that his action did come under this rule, we can concludethat there is no room for kappiya-vohāra in this context. Whatever one says inhopes of inciting someone else to kill an animal would fulfill this factor. This rulethus differs from Pr 3, under which commanding covers only clear imperatives.Result. Only if the animal dies does one incur the pācittiya here. The Commentary toPc 74 imposes a dukkaṭa on the simple act of striking an animal.Non-offenses. There is no offense in killing an animal —unintentionally — e.g., accidentally dropping a load that crushes a cat todeath;unthinkingly — e.g., absent-mindedly rubbing one's arm while it is beingbitten by mosquitoes;unknowingly — e.g., walking into a dark room and, without realizing it,stepping on an insect; orwhen one's action is motivated by a purpose other than that of causingdeath — e.g., giving medicine to a sick dog whose system, it turns out,cannot withstand the dosage.374

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!